MND 10 — Diễn Giải Kinh Trước Khi Hoại Rã

Regarding 'not dependent on the past end': the past end is called the bygone time. With regard to the past time, craving has been abandoned and view has been relinquished. Because of the abandoning of craving and the relinquishing of view, in this way too, one is not dependent on the past end. Alternatively, one does not entertain delight in the thought, “In the past, I was of such a form,” or “In the past, I was of such a feeling … such a perception … such volitional formations … such a consciousness.” In this way too, one is not dependent on the past end. Alternatively, in regard to “Thus was my eye in the past, and thus were forms,” consciousness is not bound by desire and lust; because consciousness is not bound by desire and lust, one does not delight in that. Not delighting in it, in this way too, one is not dependent on the past end. In regard to “Thus was my ear in the past, and thus were sounds,” … “Thus was my nose in the past, and thus were odors,” … “Thus was my tongue in the past, and thus were tastes,” … “Thus was my body in the past, and thus were tactile objects,” … “Thus was my mind in the past, and thus were mental phenomena,” consciousness is not bound by desire and lust; because consciousness is not bound by desire and lust, one does not delight in that. Not delighting in it, in this way too, one is not dependent on the past end. Alternatively, one does not savor, desire, or become satisfied with past laughter, talk, and games with women. In this way too, one is not dependent on the past end.

Regarding 'one would not be reckoned in the middle': 'the middle' is called the present time. With regard to the present time, craving has been abandoned and view has been relinquished. Because of the abandoning of craving and the relinquishing of view, one would not be reckoned as ‘passionate,’ ‘hostile,’ ‘deluded,’ ‘bound,’ ‘one who misapprehends,’ ‘one who has attained non-distraction,’ ‘one who has reached an undesirable state,’ or ‘one who has attained strength.’ Those volitional formations have been abandoned. Because of the abandoning of volitional formations, one would not be reckoned by way of destination: as a hell-being, or one in the animal realm, or in the sphere of ghosts, or as a human, or a deva; or as one with form, or without form; or as one with perception, or without perception, or with neither perception nor non-perception. There is no cause, no condition, no reason whereby one might be reckoned. Thus, one would not be reckoned in the middle.

Regarding 'for him there is nothing put forward': 'for him' means for the Arahant, the one whose taints are destroyed. 'Things put forward' are twofold: putting craving forward and putting view forward… This is putting craving forward… This is putting view forward. For him, putting craving forward is abandoned, putting view forward is relinquished. Because putting craving forward has been abandoned and putting view forward has been relinquished, he does not fare having put craving or view before him. He is not one with craving as his banner, craving as his standard, craving as his sovereign; not one with view as his banner, view as his standard, view as his sovereign. He does not fare surrounded by craving or view. In this way also, for him there is nothing put forward. Alternatively, he does not entertain delight in the thought, “May I be of such a form in the future,” “May I be of such a feeling… may I be of such a perception… may I be of such formations… may I be of such a consciousness in the future,” thus he does not entertain delight in that. In this way also, for him there is nothing put forward. Alternatively, thinking, “May my eye be thus in the future—may forms be thus,” he does not set his mind on attaining what has not been attained. Because his mind is not set on it, he does not delight in that; not delighting in it. In this way also, for him there is nothing put forward. Thinking, “May my ear be thus in the future—may sounds be thus,” “May my nose be thus in the future—may odors be thus,” “May my tongue be thus in the future—may tastes be thus,” “May my body be thus in the future—may tactile objects be thus,” “May my mind be thus in the future—may mental phenomena be thus,” he does not set his mind on attaining what has not been attained. Because his mind is not set on it, he does not delight in that; not delighting in it. In this way also, for him there is nothing put forward. Alternatively, thinking, “By this virtue, or observance, or austerity, or holy life, may I become a deva or one among the devas,” he does not set his mind on attaining what has not been attained. Because his mind is not set on it, he does not delight in that; not delighting in it. In this way also, for him there is nothing put forward.

Therefore the Blessed One said:

“Devoid of craving before the breakup, not dependent on the past end; in the middle he is not reckoned: for him there is nothing put forward.”

85.

Not angry and not trembling, not boastful and free from remorse, speaking with wisdom and not arrogant—that sage is truly restrained in speech.

“Not angry and not trembling”: As to “not angry,” this has been said. However, anger should first be explained. Anger arises on ten grounds: Anger arises with the thought, ‘They have done me harm.’ Anger arises with the thought, ‘They are doing me harm.’ Anger arises with the thought, ‘They will do me harm.’ Anger arises with the thought, ‘They have done harm to someone dear and pleasing to me … are doing harm … will do harm.’ Anger arises with the thought, ‘They have benefited someone disliked and unpleasing to me … are benefiting … will benefit.’ Or anger arises without due cause. Whatever resentment, repugnance, aversion, opposition, rage, fury, intense fury, hatred, malice, intense malice, ill will of the mind, corruption of the mind, anger, the act of being angry, the state of being angry, hatred, the act of hating, the state of being hateful, ill will, the act of bearing ill will, the state of bearing ill will, opposition, hostility, ferocity, ill-temper, and displeasure of the mind—this is called anger.

Moreover, the greatness and smallness of anger should be understood. There are times when anger merely agitates the mind, but does not yet cause the face to contort; there are times when anger causes the face to contort, but does not yet cause the jaws to tremble; there are times when anger causes the jaws to tremble, but does not yet cause harsh speech to be uttered; there are times when anger causes harsh speech to be uttered, but does not yet cause one to look around in all directions; there are times when anger causes one to look around in all directions, but does not yet cause one to take up a stick or a weapon; there are times when anger causes one to take up a stick or a weapon, but does not yet cause one to raise it; there are times when anger causes one to raise it, but does not yet cause one to strike with it; there are times when anger causes one to strike with it, but does not yet cause cutting and severing; there are times when anger causes cutting and severing, but does not yet cause smashing and crushing; there are times when anger causes smashing and crushing, but does not yet cause the tearing of limb from limb; there are times when anger causes the tearing of limb from limb, but does not yet cause the taking of life; there are times when anger causes the taking of life, but is not yet resolved upon total abandonment. When anger, having killed another person, kills oneself, to that extent anger has reached its highest flood, has attained its greatest proliferation. One for whom that anger is abandoned, cut off, quieted, pacified, unable to arise again, burnt up by the fire of knowledge, is called ‘one free from anger.’ Because of the abandoning of anger, he is free from anger; because of the full understanding of the ground for anger, he is free from anger; because of the cutting off of the cause of anger, he is free from anger—thus, ‘one free from anger.’

As for 'not trembling': Here, a certain person is a trembler, is terrified, and is beset by fear. He trembles, is terrified, is beset by fear, is afraid, and falls into trepidation. [Thinking,] 'I do not obtain a family of supporters, or a group, or a dwelling, or gain, or a retinue, or praise, or happiness, or robes, or almsfood, or a lodging, or medicinal requisites for the sick, or an attendant for the sick; I am of little wisdom!', he trembles, is terrified, is beset by fear, is afraid, and falls into trepidation.

Here, a monk is not a trembler, is not terrified, and is not beset by fear; he does not tremble, is not terrified, is not beset by fear, is not afraid, and does not fall into trepidation. [Thinking,] 'I do not obtain a family of supporters, or a group, or a dwelling, or gain, or a retinue, or praise, or happiness, or robes, or almsfood, or a lodging, or medicinal requisites for the sick, or an attendant for the sick; I am of little wisdom!', he does not tremble, is not terrified, is not beset by fear, is not afraid, and does not fall into trepidation. This is the meaning of 'free from anger, not trembling'.

‘One who is not a boaster’: Here, a certain person is a boaster, a braggart; he boasts and brags: ‘I am accomplished in virtue,’ or ‘accomplished in observances,’ or ‘accomplished in virtue and observances’; or by his birth, lineage, ancestry, beauty, wealth, learning, field of work, skill, branch of knowledge, learning, eloquence, or by some other ground whatsoever. He boasts and brags: ‘I have gone forth from a high family,’ or ‘from a great family,’ or ‘from a family of great wealth,’ or ‘from a family of extensive wealth’; or ‘I am well-known and famous among householders and those gone forth’; or ‘I am a recipient of robes, almsfood, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick’; or ‘I am an expert on the suttas,’ or ‘an expert on the Vinaya,’ or ‘a speaker of the Dhamma’; or ‘I am a forest-dweller,’ or ‘an almsfood-eater,’ or ‘a rag-robe-wearer,’ or ‘a triple-robe-wearer,’ or ‘one who eats on a continuous alms-round,’ or ‘one who refuses food offered later,’ or ‘a sitter,’ or ‘one who accepts any lodging’; or ‘I am an obtainer of the first jhāna,’ or ‘of the second jhāna,’ or ‘of the third jhāna,’ or ‘of the fourth jhāna’; or ‘of the attainment of the base of infinite space… of the attainment of the base of infinite consciousness… of the attainment of the base of nothingness… of the attainment of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.’ One who does not boast or brag thus, who abstains from boasting and bragging, desists from it, refrains from it, has departed from it, has cast it off, is released from it, is disjoined from it, and dwells with a mind freed from boundaries—this is one who is not a boaster.

‘One without remorse’: What is remorse? Remorse over wrongdoing with the hands is remorse; remorse over wrongdoing with the feet is remorse; remorse over wrongdoing with both hands and feet is remorse. It is perceiving the unallowable as allowable, and perceiving the allowable as unallowable; perceiving the wrong time as the right time, and perceiving the right time as the wrong time; perceiving the blameless as blameworthy, and perceiving the blameworthy as blameless. Whatever remorse of this kind, the act of feeling remorse, the state of having felt remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind—this is called remorse.

Furthermore, remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise from two causes: because of what has been done and because of what has not been done. How do remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise because of what has been done and because of what has not been done? ‘Bodily misconduct has been done by me; bodily good conduct has not been done by me’—thus remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise. ‘Verbal misconduct has been done by me; verbal good conduct has not been done by me… Mental misconduct has been done by me; mental good conduct has not been done by me’—thus remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise. ‘The destruction of life has been done by me; abstinence from the destruction of life has not been done by me’—thus remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise. ‘The taking of what is not given has been done by me; abstinence from taking what is not given has not been done by me’—thus remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise. ‘Sexual misconduct has been done by me; abstinence from sexual misconduct has not been done by me’—thus remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise. ‘False speech has been done by me; abstinence from false speech has not been done by me’… ‘Slanderous speech has been done by me; abstinence from slanderous speech has not been done by me’… ‘Harsh speech has been done by me; abstinence from harsh speech has not been done by me’… ‘Frivolous chatter has been done by me; abstinence from frivolous chatter has not been done by me’… ‘Covetousness has been done by me; non-covetousness has not been done by me’… ‘Ill will has been done by me; non-ill will has not been done by me’… ‘Wrong view has been held by me; right view has not been held by me’—thus remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise. Thus, because of what has been done and because of what has not been done, remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise.

Or else: ‘I am not one who fulfills the moral precepts’—remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise; ‘I have unguarded doors in the sense faculties’… ‘I do not know the measure in food’… ‘I am not devoted to wakefulness’… ‘I am not endowed with mindfulness and clear comprehension’… ‘The four foundations of mindfulness have not been developed by me’… ‘The four right strivings have not been developed by me’… ‘The four bases of spiritual power have not been developed by me’… ‘The five spiritual faculties have not been developed by me’… ‘The five powers have not been developed by me’… ‘The seven factors of enlightenment have not been developed by me’… ‘The Noble Eightfold Path has not been developed by me’… ‘Suffering has not been fully understood by me’… ‘The origin has not been abandoned by me’… ‘The path has not been developed by me’… ‘Cessation has not been realized by me’—remorse, mental regret, and vexation of mind arise. One for whom this remorse is abandoned, cut off at the root, quieted, allayed, incapable of future arising, and burnt up by the fire of knowledge, is called one without remorse. This is the meaning of the term ‘one who is not a boaster, one without remorse’.

Regarding ‘one who speaks thoughtfully, one who is not restless’ (`mantabhāṇī anuddhato`): `Mantā` is a term for wisdom (`paññā`). That is, the wisdom which is understanding… and so on… non-delusion, investigation of phenomena, right view. Having comprehended and reflected with wisdom, one utters speech. Even when relating much, speaking much, explaining much, or conversing much, one does not utter speech that is ill-spoken, ill-phrased, ill-expressed, ill-articulated, or ill-delivered—this is one who speaks thoughtfully (`mantabhāṇī`). Regarding ‘one who is not restless’ (`anuddhato`): Therein, what is restlessness (`uddhacca`)? Whatever is the mind’s restlessness, its lack of calm, the mind’s distraction, and its state of agitation—this is called restlessness. One for whom this restlessness is abandoned, cut off at the root, quieted, allayed, incapable of future arising, and burnt up by the fire of knowledge, is called one who is not restless (`anuddhato`). Thus: one who speaks thoughtfully, one who is not restless.

‘He is indeed a sage restrained in speech.’ Here, a bhikkhu, having abandoned false speech, abstains from false speech. He is a truth-speaker, one who keeps his word, trustworthy, reliable, not a deceiver of the world. Having abandoned divisive speech, he abstains from divisive speech. He does not repeat there what he has heard here in order to divide those people from these, nor does he repeat here what he has heard there in order to divide these people from those. Thus he is a reconciler of those who are divided and a supporter of those who are united. He delights in harmony, rejoices in harmony, is fond of harmony, and speaks words that create harmony. Having abandoned harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech. He speaks such words as are blameless, pleasing to the ear, affectionate, going to the heart, courteous, dear and agreeable to the many. Having abandoned idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks at the right time, speaks what is true, speaks on what is beneficial, speaks on the Dhamma and the discipline. He speaks words worth treasuring, which are timely, reasoned, circumscribed, and connected with the goal. Endowed with these four kinds of good verbal conduct, he speaks speech that is free from four faults. He has abstained from the thirty-two kinds of lowly talk, has refrained from them, is aloof from them; he dwells having departed, detached, released, dissociated, with a mind that has established boundaries.

He speaks on the ten topics for conversation, that is: he speaks on fewness of wishes, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-association, on arousing energy, on virtue, on concentration, on wisdom, on liberation, on the knowledge and vision of liberation... on the establishments of mindfulness, on the right strivings, on the bases for spiritual power, on the spiritual faculties, on the powers, on the factors of enlightenment, on the path, on the fruit, on Nibbāna. ‘Restrained in speech’ means he is controlled, well-restrained, guarded, protected, watched over, and quieted. ‘Sage.’ Sagacity is a term for knowledge. That is, the wisdom which is understanding… and so on… non-delusion, investigation of phenomena, right view… and so on… ‘Having passed beyond the net of entanglement, he is a sage.’ Thus, he is indeed a sage restrained in speech.

Therefore the Blessed One said:

“Not angry and not trembling, not a boaster, without remorse, a thoughtful speaker and not restless: he is indeed the sage restrained in speech.”

86.

“Without attachment to the future, he does not grieve for the past; he sees seclusion in regard to contacts, and is not led by views.”

Regarding ‘without clinging to the future’ (`nirāsatti anāgate`): Clinging (`āsatti`) is a term for craving (`taṇhā`). That is, lust, passion… and so on… covetousness, greed, an unwholesome root. For one for whom this clinging, this craving, has been abandoned, cut off at the root, quieted, allayed, become incapable of arising, and burnt up by the fire of knowledge—in this way too one is without clinging to the future. Or else, one does not entertain delight in the thought: ‘May I have such a form in the future!’ ‘May I have such a feeling… such a perception… such volitional formations… such consciousness in the future!’—one does not entertain delight in that. In this way too one is without clinging to the future. Or else, one does not set one's mind on obtaining what has not been obtained, thinking: ‘May I have such an eye in the future, and such forms!’ Because one's mind is not set on it, one does not delight in it; not delighting in it. In this way too one is without clinging to the future. ‘May I have such an ear in the future, and such sounds!’… and so on… ‘May I have such a mind in the future, and such mental objects!’—one does not set one's mind on obtaining what has not been obtained. Because one's mind is not set on it, one does not delight in it; not delighting in it. In this way too one is without clinging to the future. Or else, thinking: ‘By this virtue or observance or austerity or holy life, may I become a deva or some kind of deva!’—one does not set one's mind on obtaining what has not been obtained. Because one's mind is not set on it, one does not delight in it; not delighting in it. In this way too one is without clinging to the future.

‘He does not grieve for the past.’ He does not grieve for a thing that has changed, nor does he grieve about a thing that has changed. He does not grieve, thinking: ‘My eye has changed.’ He does not grieve, thinking: ‘My ear… my nose… my tongue… my body… my forms… my sounds… my odors… my tastes… my tangibles… my clan… my group… my dwelling… my gain… my honor… my praise… my happiness… my robe… my almsfood… my lodging… my medicinal requisites for use in sickness… my mother… my father… my brother… my sister… my son… my daughter… my friends… my associates… my kinsmen… my blood relatives have changed.’ He does not grieve, does not become weary, does not lament, does not beat his breast and wail, and does not fall into delusion. Thus ‘he does not grieve for the past.’

‘He sees seclusion in regard to contacts.’ Eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact; designation-contact, resistance-contact; contact accompanied by pleasant feeling, contact accompanied by painful feeling, contact accompanied by neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling; wholesome contact, unwholesome contact, indeterminate contact; contact pertaining to the sense-sphere, contact pertaining to the form-sphere, contact pertaining to the formless-sphere; contact that is empty, contact that is signless, contact that is undirected; worldly contact, supramundane contact; past contact, future contact, present contact. Whatever kind of contact, touching, impingement, state of having been touched there is—this is called contact.

One who sees seclusion in contacts: He sees eye-contact as secluded from self or what belongs to self, from what is permanent, stable, eternal, or from what has a nature not subject to change; he sees ear-contact as secluded; he sees nose-contact as secluded; he sees tongue-contact as secluded; he sees body-contact as secluded; he sees mind-contact as secluded; he sees designation-contact as secluded; he sees resistance-contact as secluded; he sees contact associated with pleasant feeling as secluded; he sees contact associated with painful feeling as secluded; he sees contact associated with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling as secluded; he sees wholesome contact as secluded; he sees unwholesome contact as secluded; he sees indeterminate contact as secluded; he sees sense-sphere contact as secluded; he sees form-sphere contact as secluded; he sees formless-sphere contact as secluded; he sees mundane contact as secluded from self or what belongs to self, from what is permanent, stable, eternal, or from what has a nature not subject to change.

Or else, he sees past contact as secluded from future and present contacts; future contact as secluded from past and present contacts; present contact as secluded from past and future contacts. Or else, he sees those contacts that are noble, taintless, supramundane, connected with emptiness, as secluded from lust, hatred, delusion, anger, resentment, contempt, insolence, envy, stinginess, deceit, dishonesty, obstinacy, rivalry, conceit, arrogance, intoxication, negligence, from all defilements, from all wrong conduct, from all torments, from all burning distresses, from all afflictions, and from all unwholesome formations. Thus, this is one who sees seclusion in contacts.

And he is not led by views. For him, the sixty-two kinds of wrong views have been abandoned, uprooted, stilled, pacified, made incapable of arising, and burned by the fire of knowledge. He does not go, is not led, is not carried away, is not carried along by views. Nor does he believe in that wrong view as essential, nor does he return to it. This is the meaning of the phrase 'And he is not led by views'.

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“Without attachment to the future, he grieves not for the past; seeing seclusion in contacts, he is not led by views.”

87.

Withdrawn, unfeigning, not covetous, not avaricious, unpresumptuous, not loathsome, and not engaged in malicious speech.

Withdrawn, unfeigning: Withdrawn because lust has been abandoned, withdrawn because hatred has been abandoned, withdrawn because delusion has been abandoned, withdrawn because anger… resentment… disparagement… insolence… envy… stinginess… and all unwholesome formations have been abandoned. As the Blessed One has said: “And how, bhikkhus, is a bhikkhu withdrawn? For this bhikkhu, the conceit ‘I am’ has been abandoned, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, brought to non-existence, subject to no further arising in the future. Thus, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is withdrawn.” —Withdrawn.

Unfeigning: There are three grounds for deceit: deceit regarding the use of requisites, deceit regarding demeanor, and deceit consisting of hinting.

What is the ground for deceit called ‘the partaking of requisites’? Here, householders invite a bhikkhu with robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick. Being of evil desires, overcome by longing, and desiring robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick, on account of desiring more, he rejects a robe, rejects alms-food, rejects lodging, and rejects medicinal requisites for the sick. He says thus: “What use is an expensive robe for an ascetic? It is fitting that an ascetic, having collected rags from a charnel ground, a rubbish heap, or a market, and having made a patchwork robe, should wear it. What use is expensive alms-food for an ascetic? It is fitting that an ascetic should maintain his livelihood by the practice of gleaning with lumps of food obtained by morsels. What use is expensive lodging for an ascetic? It is fitting that an ascetic should be a dweller at the foot of a tree, a charnel-ground dweller, or an open-air dweller. What use are expensive medicinal requisites for the sick for an ascetic? It is fitting that an ascetic should make medicine with fermented urine or a piece of myrobalan fruit.” On account of this, he wears a coarse robe, partakes of coarse alms-food, uses a coarse lodging, and uses coarse medicinal requisites for the sick. The householders know him thus: “This ascetic is of few desires, content, secluded, unsociable, of aroused energy, and an advocate of ascetic practices.” They invite him again and again with robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick. He says thus: “Due to the presence of three things, a faithful clansman generates much merit. Due to the presence of faith, a faithful clansman generates much merit; due to the presence of the gift, a faithful clansman generates much merit; due to the presence of worthy recipients, a faithful clansman generates much merit. You have this faith, the gift is available, and I am the recipient. If I do not accept, you will thus be excluded from merit. I have no need for this, but I accept out of compassion for you alone.” On account of this, he accepts many robes, much alms-food, many lodgings, and many medicinal requisites for the sick. Whatever frowning of such a nature, the act of frowning, deceit, the manner of being deceitful, and the state of being deceitful—this is the ground for deceit called ‘the partaking of requisites’.

What is the ground for deceit called ‘deceit regarding demeanor’? Here, a certain person, being of evil desires, overcome by longing, and with the intention of being esteemed, thinks, “In this way people will esteem me.” He composes his walking, composes his standing, composes his sitting, and composes his lying down. He walks with deliberation, stands with deliberation, sits with deliberation, and lies down with deliberation. He walks as if concentrated, stands as if concentrated, sits as if concentrated, and lies down as if concentrated; he appears to be one who meditates in the presence of others. Whatever such placing, posturing, and composing of demeanor, frowning, the act of frowning, deceit, the manner of being deceitful, and the state of being deceitful—this is the ground for deceit called ‘deceit regarding demeanor’.

What is the ground for deceit called ‘allusive talk’? Here, a certain person, being of evil desires, overcome by longing, and with the intention of being esteemed, thinks, “In this way people will esteem me,” and speaks words connected to the noble Dhamma. He says, “Whoever wears such a robe is an ascetic of great power.” He says, “Whoever carries such a bowl… a copper bowl… a water pot… a water strainer… a waistband… a shoulder strap is an ascetic of great power.” He says, “Whoever has such a preceptor is an ascetic of great power.” He says, “Whoever has such a teacher… such fellow residents with the same preceptor… such fellow residents with the same teacher… such friends… such acquaintances… such companions… such comrades is an ascetic of great power.” He says, “Whoever dwells in such a monastery is an ascetic of great power.” He says, “Whoever dwells in such a gabled dwelling… in a mansion… in a flat-roofed mansion… in a cave… in a rock-shelter… in a hut… in a peaked-roof building… on a watchtower… on a platform… in a storehouse… in an assembly hall… in a pavilion… at the root of a tree, is an ascetic of great power.”

Or else, being very scowling, habitually frowning, very deceitful, a great prattler, and one who extols with his own mouth, he speaks a talk that is profound, abstruse, subtle, concealed, supramundane, and connected with emptiness, implying: 'This ascetic is a gainer of such peaceful meditative attainments.' Whatever frowning of such a nature, the act of frowning, deceit, the manner of being deceitful, and the state of being deceitful—all this is the ground for deceit called ‘allusive talk.’ One for whom these three grounds for deceit have been abandoned, utterly cut off, stilled, calmed, made incapable of arising, and burned by the fire of knowledge, is called 'one who is not deceitful'; he is withdrawn, not deceitful.

'Free from desire and free from stinginess.' Desire is called craving. That which is lust, passion... <and so on> ... covetousness, greed, an unwholesome root. One for whom this desire, this craving, has been abandoned, cut off at the root, stilled, pacified, made incapable of arising, and burned up by the fire of knowledge, is called 'free from desire.' He does not desire forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, a family, a group, a dwelling, gain, praise, pleasure, a robe, almsfood, a lodging, medicinal requisites for the sick, the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm, desire-realm existence, form-realm existence, formless-realm existence, existence with perception, existence without perception, existence with neither-perception-nor-non-perception, existence with one constituent, existence with four constituents, existence with five constituents, the past, the future, the present, or things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized. He does not desire them, wish for them, delight in them, long for them, or yearn for them—thus he is 'free from desire.' 'Free from stinginess' means the five kinds of stinginess: stinginess regarding dwellings, families, gains, appearance, and the Dhamma. Whatever stinginess of this sort—miserliness, avarice, possessiveness, meanness, hard-heartedness, and an ungenerous state of mind—this is called 'stinginess.' Moreover, stinginess regarding the aggregates is stinginess; stinginess regarding the elements is stinginess; stinginess regarding the sense bases, this grasping, is called stinginess. One for whom this stinginess has been abandoned, cut off at the root, stilled, pacified, made incapable of arising, and burned up by the fire of knowledge, is called 'free from stinginess.' Thus: 'Free from desire and free from stinginess.'

'Not impudent and not contemptible.' There are three kinds of impudence: bodily impudence, verbal impudence, and mental impudence. What is bodily impudence? Here, a certain person displays bodily impudence when amidst the Saṅgha, when amidst a group, in the dining hall, in the steam-bath house, at the bathing place, when entering a village, and after having entered a village.

How does one display bodily impudence in the midst of the Saṅgha? Here, a certain person in the midst of the Saṅgha, disrespectfully, stands jostling the elder bhikkhus, sits jostling them, stands in front of them, sits in front of them, sits on a high seat, sits with his head covered, speaks while standing, and speaks while swinging his arms. In this way one displays bodily impudence in the midst of the Saṅgha.

How does one display bodily impudence within a group? Here, a certain person within a group, disrespectfully, walks with sandals on while the elder bhikkhus are walking without sandals; he walks on a high walking path while they are walking on a low one; he walks on a walking path while they are walking on the ground; he stands jostling them, sits jostling them, stands in front of them, sits in front of them, sits on a high seat, sits with his head covered, speaks while standing, and speaks while swinging his arms. In this way one displays bodily impudence within a group.

How does one display bodily impudence in the dining hall? Here, a certain bhikkhu in the dining hall, without showing respect, sits down encroaching upon the elder bhikkhus, and he also debars the junior bhikkhus from their seats. He stands while jostling them, and he sits while jostling them. He stands in front of them, and he sits in front of them. He also sits on a high seat. He also sits having covered his head. He speaks while standing, and he speaks while gesticulating with his arms. In this way, one displays bodily impudence in the dining hall.

How does one display bodily impudence in the steam-bath house? Here, a certain bhikkhu in the steam-bath house, without showing respect, stands while jostling the elder bhikkhus, and he sits while jostling them. He stands in front of them, and he sits in front of them. He also sits on a high seat. Without having asked and without being invited, he puts firewood on the fire and closes the door. He speaks while gesticulating with his arms. In this way, one displays bodily impudence in the steam-bath house.

How does one display bodily impudence at a watering place? Here, a certain bhikkhu at a watering place, without showing respect, goes down into the water while jostling the elder bhikkhus, and he goes down in front of them. He bathes while jostling them, he bathes in front of them, and he bathes upstream of them. He comes out of the water while jostling them, he comes out in front of them, and he comes out upstream of them. In this way, one displays bodily impudence at a watering place.

How does one display bodily impudence when entering a village? Here, a certain bhikkhu, when entering a village, without showing respect, walks while jostling the elder bhikkhus, and he walks in front of them. Having passed by, he walks right in front of the elder bhikkhus. In this way, one displays bodily impudence when entering a village.

How does a monk who has entered a village display bodily impudence? Here, a certain monk, having entered a village, when told, 'Do not enter, venerable sir,' enters; when told, 'Do not stand, venerable sir,' he stands; when told, 'Do not sit, venerable sir,' he sits. He also enters an inappropriate place, stands in an inappropriate place, and sits in an inappropriate place. And there are those inner rooms of families that are concealed and covered, where women of the family, daughters of the family, daughters-in-law of the family, and young maidens of the family are sitting; there too he enters abruptly. He also strokes a young boy's head. In this way, a monk who has entered a village displays bodily impudence. This is how one displays bodily impudence.

What is verbal impudence? Here, a certain one displays verbal impudence even when amidst the Saṅgha, displays verbal impudence even when amidst a group, and displays verbal impudence even after having entered a village.

How does one who is amidst the Saṅgha display verbal impudence? Here, a certain monk who is amidst the Saṅgha, being disrespectful, without having asked the elder monks and without being invited, teaches the Dhamma to the monks who have come to the monastery, answers questions, and recites the Pātimokkha. He also speaks while standing, and he also speaks while gesticulating with his arms. In this way, one who is amidst the Saṅgha displays verbal impudence.

How does one who is amidst a group display verbal impudence? Here, a certain monk who is amidst a group, being disrespectful, without having asked the elder monks and without being invited, teaches the Dhamma to the monks who have come to the monastery, answers questions, also speaks while standing, and also speaks while gesticulating with his arms. He teaches the Dhamma to the nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers who have come to the monastery, answers questions, also speaks while standing, and also speaks while gesticulating with his arms. In this way, one who is amidst a group displays verbal impudence.

How does one who has entered a village display verbal impudence? Here, a certain one, having entered a village, speaks to a woman or a girl thus: 'You of such-and-such name and such-and-such clan, what is there? Is there gruel? Is there rice? Is there solid food? What shall we drink? What shall we eat? What shall we chew? Or what is there? Or what will you give me?'—he prattles. Such speech is idle chatter, babbling, prattle, prattling, a state of prattling. Thus, one who has entered a village displays verbal impudence—this is verbal impudence.

What is mental impudence? Here, a certain one, not having gone forth from a high family, considers himself equal in mind to one who has gone forth from a high family; not having gone forth from a great family, he considers himself equal in mind to one who has gone forth from a great family; not having gone forth from a family of great wealth, he considers himself equal in mind to one who has gone forth from a family of great wealth; not having gone forth from a family of extensive wealth… not being a master of the Suttas, he considers himself equal in mind to one who is a master of the Suttas; not being a master of the Vinaya… not being a preacher of the Dhamma… not being a forest-dweller… not being one who lives on alms-food… not being a rag-robe wearer… not being a triple-robe wearer… not being one who goes for alms from house to house… not being one who refuses food offered after the proper time… not being one who practices the sitter's austerity… not being one who accepts whatever seat is offered… not being an attainer of the first jhāna, he considers himself equal in mind to one who is an attainer of the first jhāna… and so on… not being an attainer of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he considers himself equal in mind to one who is an attainer of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception—this is mental impudence. He for whom these three kinds of impudence are abandoned, cut off at the root, stilled, calmed, incapable of arising again, and burned by the fire of knowledge, is called one without impudence.

Regarding 'not reprehensible.' There is a person who is reprehensible, and there is a person who is not reprehensible. And what kind of person is reprehensible? Here, a certain person is immoral, of evil nature, of impure and suspect conduct, whose actions are concealed; not a recluse, though claiming to be a recluse; not practicing the noble life, though claiming to practice the noble life; inwardly rotten, oozing, and born of filth—this is called a reprehensible person. Or else, one is angry and prone to vexation; even when spoken to slightly, they become displeased, get angry, become hostile, and recalcitrant, and make manifest anger, ill will, and discontent—this is called a reprehensible person. Or else, one is angry and bears a grudge; is a denigrator and contemptuous; is envious and stingy; is fraudulent and deceitful; is stubborn and conceited; has evil wishes and wrong view; is one who clings to their own views, grasps wrongly, and is difficult to make relinquish—this is called a reprehensible person.

And what kind of person is not reprehensible? Here, a monk is virtuous, dwells restrained by the monastic code, is endowed with right conduct and resort, sees danger in the slightest faults, and having undertaken them, trains in the training rules—this is called a person who is not reprehensible. Or else, one is not angry and not full of vexation; even when spoken to much, one is not offended, does not get angry, does not become hostile, and does not become obstinate; and one does not make manifest anger, ill will, and displeasure—this is called a person who is not reprehensible. Or else, one is not angry and does not bear grudges; is not denigrating and not contemptuous; is not envious and not stingy; is not fraudulent and not deceitful; is not stubborn and not conceited; does not have evil wishes and does not have wrong view; is not one who clings to their own views, does not grasp wrongly, and relinquishes easily—this is called a person who is not reprehensible. All foolish worldlings are reprehensible; including the virtuous worldling, the eight noble persons are not reprehensible. Thus: 'not arrogant, not reprehensible'.

Regarding the phrase 'And is not given to slander': As for slander, it is when a certain person here is a speaker of slanderous speech. Having heard something here, they report it elsewhere to cause division among those people; or having heard something there, they report it to these people to cause division among those other people. Thus, they are a breaker of the united or an instigator of the divided. They delight in factions, enjoy factions, take pleasure in factions, and are a speaker of words that create factions. This is called slander.

Furthermore, one engages in slander for two reasons: either out of a desire to be loved or with the intention of causing division. How does one engage in slander out of a desire to be loved? Thinking: 'I will be dear to this person, I will be pleasing, I will be trusted, I will be an intimate, I will be a good friend.' In this way, one engages in slander out of a desire to be loved. How does one engage in slander with the intention of causing division? Thinking: 'How might these people become separate? How might they be apart? How might they become factions? How might they become twofold? How might they become two groups? How might they become two sides? How might they be broken apart, not come together, and live in misery, not at ease?' In this way, one engages in slander with the intention of causing division. For whom this slander is abandoned, cut off at the root, pacified, allayed, made incapable of arising, and burned by the fire of knowledge, that person is not given to slander, not yoked to it, not engaged in it, not rightly yoked to it. Thus: 'And is not given to slander.'

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“Withdrawn, not deceitful, uncovetous, not stingy; not arrogant, not contemptible, and not given to slander.”

88.

Not drawn to pleasures, and not given to excessive conceit; gentle and discerning, not blindly faithful, and has no attachment.

Regarding 'Not drawn to pleasures': The five strands of sensual pleasure are called 'delights' (sātiyā). For what reason are the five strands of sensual pleasure called 'delights'? Because, for the most part, gods and humans desire, delight in, long for, yearn for, and crave the five strands of sensual pleasure; for that reason, the five strands of sensual pleasure are called 'delights'. For those by whom this delightful craving is not abandoned, craving for forms arises from the eye, flows out, streams forth, and continues; craving for sounds from the ear… craving for smells from the nose… craving for tastes from the tongue… craving for tactile objects from the body… craving for mental objects from the mind arises, flows out, streams forth, and continues. For those by whom this delightful craving is abandoned, cut off, calmed, stilled, unable to arise, and burned by the fire of knowledge, craving for forms does not arise from the eye, does not flow out, does not stream forth, and does not continue; craving for sounds from the ear… and so on… craving for mental objects from the mind does not arise, does not flow out, does not stream forth, and does not continue. This is the meaning of 'not drawn to pleasures'.

Regarding 'And not given to excessive conceit': What is excessive conceit? Here, a certain person disparages another on account of birth, lineage, … or some other reason. Whatever conceit of this kind, conceiving, the state of having conceived, loftiness, haughtiness, being like a banner, self-exaltation, and the mind's desire to be a banner—this is called excessive conceit. For the one by whom this excessive conceit is abandoned, cut off, calmed, stilled, unable to arise, and burned by the fire of knowledge, that person is not given to excessive conceit, not yoked, not engaged, not rightly yoked. This is the meaning of 'and not given to excessive conceit'.

Regarding 'Gentle and discerning': 'Gentle' means being endowed with gentle bodily action… with gentle verbal action… with gentle mental action… with the gentle foundations of mindfulness… with the gentle right strivings… with the gentle bases of spiritual power… with the gentle spiritual faculties… with the gentle powers… with the gentle factors of enlightenment… with the gentle, noble, eightfold path—thus, one is 'gentle'.

What is 'one who is wise'? There are three kinds of wise ones: one who is wise through learning, one who is wise through questioning, and one who is wise through attainment. Who is the one wise through learning? Here, a certain person has naturally learned the scriptures—discourses, mixed prose and verse, expositions, verses, inspired utterances, sayings, birth stories, amazing events, and analytical discourses. For them, based on that learning, knowledge arises. This is one who is wise through learning. Who is the one wise through questioning? Here, a certain person is one who questions about meaning, about what accords with meaning, about characteristics, about causes, and about what is possible and impossible. For them, based on that questioning, knowledge arises. This is one who is wise through questioning. Who is the one wise through attainment? Here, a certain person has attained the four establishments of mindfulness, the four right strivings, the four bases for spiritual power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, the noble eightfold path, the four noble paths, the four fruits of the contemplative life, the four analytical knowledges, and the six higher knowledges. For them, the meaning is known, the Dhamma is known, and the language is known. When the meaning is known, knowledge of the meaning arises; when the Dhamma is known, knowledge of the Dhamma arises; when the language is known, knowledge of the language arises. The knowledge concerning these three is the analytical knowledge of ready wit. One who is endowed with this analytical knowledge of ready wit, well endowed, attained, well attained, possessed, fully possessed, and furnished—such a one is called 'one who is wise.' For one who has no learning, no questioning, and no attainment, what knowledge will arise for them? This is the meaning of 'gentle and one who is wise.'

Regarding the text, 'He is not credulous, nor does he become dispassionate': 'Not credulous' means that he does not place faith in anyone else—whether another ascetic, a brahmin, a deva, Māra, or Brahmā—regarding a Dhamma that he has directly known for himself, personally witnessed. 'All formations are impermanent'—this he has directly known for himself... 'All formations are suffering'... 'All phenomena are nonself'... 'With ignorance as condition, formations come to be'... 'With birth as condition, aging-and-death comes to be'... 'With the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of formations'... 'With the cessation of birth comes the cessation of aging-and-death'... 'This is suffering'... 'This is the path leading to the cessation of suffering'... 'These are the taints'... 'This is the path leading to the cessation of the taints'... 'These things are to be directly known'... 'These things are to be realized'... the arising and passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the six sense bases... the arising and passing away... in the case of the five aggregates of clinging... the arising and passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the four great elements, this he has directly known for himself... 'Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation'—regarding a Dhamma that he has directly known for himself, personally witnessed, he does not place faith in anyone else, whether another ascetic, a brahmin, a deva, Māra, or Brahmā.

This was said by the Blessed One: "Sāriputta, do you believe that the faculty of faith, when developed and cultivated, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its destination, has the Deathless as its final end; that the faculty of energy... the faculty of mindfulness... the faculty of concentration... the faculty of wisdom, when developed and cultivated, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its destination, has the Deathless as its final end?"

“Venerable Sir, in this matter, I do not proceed by faith in the Blessed One that the faculty of faith… the faculty of energy… the faculty of mindfulness… the faculty of concentration… the faculty of wisdom, when developed and cultivated, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its destination, and has the Deathless as its final end. For those, Venerable Sir, for whom this is not known, not seen, not understood, not realized, and not touched by wisdom, they would proceed by faith in others that the faculty of faith, when developed and cultivated, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its destination, and has the Deathless as its final end. The faculty of energy… the faculty of mindfulness… the faculty of concentration… the faculty of wisdom, when developed and cultivated, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its destination, and has the Deathless as its final end. But for those, Venerable Sir, for whom this is known, seen, understood, realized, and touched by wisdom, they are without doubt, without uncertainty in this matter. The faculty of faith… the faculty of energy… the faculty of mindfulness… the faculty of concentration… the faculty of wisdom, when developed and cultivated, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its destination, and has the Deathless as its final end. And for me, Venerable Sir, this is known, seen, understood, realized, and touched by wisdom; I am without doubt, without uncertainty in this matter. The faculty of faith… the faculty of energy… the faculty of mindfulness… the faculty of concentration… the faculty of wisdom, when developed and cultivated, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its destination, and has the Deathless as its final end.”

“Good, good, Sāriputta! For those, Sāriputta, for whom this is not known, not seen, not understood, not realized, and not touched by wisdom, they would proceed by faith in others that the faculty of faith… and so on… the faculty of wisdom, when developed and cultivated, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its destination, and has the Deathless as its final end.”

“The person who is not credulous, who knows the Uncreated, who has severed the connection, who has destroyed the opportunity, and who has disgorged all desires—he is truly the supreme person.”

Regarding 'He is not credulous, nor does he become dispassionate': All foolish worldlings are impassioned; taking the virtuous worldling as a basis, the seven persons in training become dispassionate. The Arahant is neither impassioned nor does he become dispassionate. He is dispassionate through the destruction of lust, by being free from lust; through the destruction of hatred, by being free from hatred; through the destruction of delusion, by being free from delusion. He has lived the holy life, has fulfilled his practice… for him there is no further becoming, which is the saṃsāra of birth and death. This is the meaning of 'he is not credulous, nor does he become dispassionate'.

Therefore the Blessed One said:

“Unattached to sensual pleasures, and not given to conceit; gentle and discerning, he is not credulous, nor does he become dispassionate.”

89.

He does not train out of desire for gain, nor is he angered by lack of gain; unconflicted by craving, he is not greedy for tastes.

Regarding 'He does not train out of desire for gain, nor is he angered by lack of gain': How does one train out of desire for gain? Here, monks, a monk sees another monk who is a gainer of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites for the sick. It occurs to him: “For what reason is this venerable one a gainer of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites for the sick?” It occurs to him: “This venerable one is an expert in the discourses, that is why he is a gainer of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites for the sick.” So, for the sake of gain, on account of gain, for the reason of gain, for the special production of gain, he learns the discourses while cultivating gain. In this way, one trains out of desire for gain.

Or, a monk sees another monk who is a recipient of robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick. It occurs to him: 'For what reason indeed is this venerable one a recipient of robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick?' It occurs to him: 'This venerable one is a master of the Vinaya... a master of the Abhidhamma; for that reason, this venerable one is a recipient of robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick.' That monk, for the sake of gain, on account of gain, for the reason of gain, for the special production of gain, learns the Abhidhamma while cultivating gain. In this way also, one trains out of desire for gain.

Or, a monk sees another monk who is a recipient of robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick. It occurs to him: 'For what reason indeed is this venerable one a recipient of robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick?' It occurs to him: 'This venerable one undertakes the ascetic practice of a forest-dweller... of an alms-food-eater... of a rag-robe-wearer... of a three-robe-wearer... of going from house to house in order... of refusing food offered later... of sitting... of using whatever lodging is allotted; for that reason, this venerable one is a recipient of robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites for the sick.' That monk, for the sake of gain, on account of gain, for the reason of gain, for the special production of gain, while cultivating gain, becomes a forest-dweller... becomes one who uses whatever lodging is allotted. In this way also, one trains out of desire for gain.

How does one not train out of desire for gain? Here, a monk learns the Suttanta, learns the Vinaya, and learns the Abhidhamma, not for the sake of gain, not on account of gain, not for the reason of gain, not for the special production of gain, and not while cultivating gain, but only for the sake of his own taming, his own calming, and his own complete quenching. In this way, one does not train out of desire for gain.

Or, a monk—not for the sake of gain, not on account of gain, not for the reason of gain, not for the special production of gain, nor while cultivating gain, but relying solely on fewness of wishes, on contentment, on the effacement of defilements, on seclusion, and on this being for a wholesome purpose—becomes a forest-dweller, an alms-food-eater, a rag-robe-wearer, a three-robe-wearer, one who goes on an alms-round in sequence, one who refuses food offered later, a sitter, and one who accepts any lodging. In this way also, one does not train out of desire for gain. This is the meaning of 'he does not train out of desire for gain'.

Regarding 'And is not angered by lack of gain': How is one angered by lack of gain? Here, someone thinks: ‘I do not gain a family, I do not gain a group, I do not gain a residence, I do not gain gain, I do not gain fame, I do not gain praise, I do not gain happiness, I do not gain robes, I do not gain alms-food, I do not gain lodging, I do not gain medicinal requisites for the sick, I do not gain a sick-attendant, I am of little wisdom,’ and becomes angered, hostile, and resistant; he manifests anger, aversion, and displeasure. This is how one is angered by lack of gain.

How is one not angered by lack of gain? Here, a monk thinks: ‘I do not gain a family, I do not gain a group... I am of little wisdom,’ yet he is not angered, not hostile, and not resistant; he does not manifest anger, aversion, or displeasure. This is how one is not angered by lack of gain. This is the meaning of 'he does not train out of desire for gain and is not angered by lack of gain'.

“He is unconflicted, and is not greedy for tastes out of craving.” ‘Opposition’ refers to the mind’s affliction, resistance, repugnance, and opposition; anger, irritation, and intense irritation; hatred, malice, and intense malice; the mind’s corruption and mental corruption; anger, being angry, and the state of being angry; hatred, being corrupt, and the state of being corrupt; corruption, being corrupt, and the state of being corrupt; opposition and repeated opposition; harshness, ill-temper, and displeasure of the mind—this is called opposition. One for whom this opposition is abandoned, utterly cut off, calmed, pacified, is incapable of arising, and is burnt by the fire of knowledge, is called ‘unopposed’. ‘Craving’ means craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, and craving for mental objects. ‘Taste’ means root-sap, trunk-sap, bark-sap, leaf-sap, flower-sap, and fruit-sap; sour, sweet, bitter, pungent, salty, alkaline, acidic, astringent, agreeable, disagreeable, cold, and hot. There are some ascetics and brahmins who are greedy for tastes. They wander about seeking choice tastes with the tip of their tongue. Having obtained sour, they seek non-sour; having obtained non-sour, they seek sour. Having obtained sweet, they seek non-sweet; having obtained non-sweet, they seek sweet. Having obtained bitter, they seek non-bitter; having obtained non-bitter, they seek bitter. Having obtained pungent, they seek non-pungent; having obtained non-pungent, they seek pungent. Having obtained salty, they seek non-salty; having obtained non-salty, they seek salty. Having obtained alkaline, they seek non-alkaline; having obtained non-alkaline, they seek alkaline. Having obtained acidic, they seek astringent; having obtained astringent, they seek acidic. Having obtained agreeable, they seek disagreeable; having obtained disagreeable, they seek agreeable. Having obtained cold, they seek hot; having obtained hot, they seek cold. Whatever they obtain, they are not content with it but seek more and more. They are infatuated, greedy, addicted, besotted, immersed, attached, especially attached, and bound by agreeable tastes. One for whom this craving for tastes is abandoned, utterly cut off, calmed, pacified, is incapable of arising, and is burnt by the fire of knowledge, reflects appropriately and takes nourishment: ‘Not for amusement, not for intoxication, not for adornment, not for beautification, but only for the maintenance of this body, for its continuance, for the cessation of the affliction of hunger, and for the support of the holy life. Thus, I shall ward off the old feeling of hunger and not give rise to a new feeling from overeating. In this way, my life will be sustained, I will be blameless, and I will live in comfort.’”

Just as one would anoint a wound only for the purpose of healing, or as one would grease an axle only for the purpose of transporting a load, or as one would eat the flesh of one’s son only for the purpose of crossing a difficult journey; in this same way, a monk, having reflected wisely, consumes food: ‘Not for amusement… and for dwelling in comfort.’ He abandons craving for tastes, dispels it, makes it cease, and causes it not to arise again. He would be aloof from craving for tastes, detached from it, completely detached from it, gone out from it, released from it, completely freed from it, disjoined from it; he dwells with a mind that has transcended limitations. This is the meaning of ‘unconflicted, and not greedy for tastes out of craving’.

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“He does not train out of desire for gain, nor is he angered by not receiving gain; unconflicted, and not greedy for tastes out of craving.”

90.

Always equanimous and mindful, he does not conceive himself as equal in the world, nor as superior, nor as inferior. For him, there are no swellings of pride.

“Always equanimous and mindful.” ‘Equanimous’ means endowed with six-factored equanimity. Having seen a form with the eye, one is neither gladdened nor displeased, but dwells equanimous, mindful, and fully aware. Having heard a sound with the ear… and so on… having cognized a mental object with the mind, one is neither gladdened nor displeased, but dwells equanimous, mindful, and fully aware. Having seen a pleasant form with the eye, one does not crave it, does not delight in it, and does not give rise to lust. For that one, the body remains steady, the mind remains steady, inwardly well-established, and well-liberated. Indeed, having seen an unpleasant form with the eye, one is not downcast, has an unagitated mind, an unshrinking mind, and a mind free from ill will. For that one, the body remains steady, the mind remains steady, inwardly well-established, and well-liberated. Having heard a sound with the ear… having smelled an odor with the nose… having tasted a flavor with the tongue… having touched a tangible with the body… having cognized a pleasant mental object with the mind, one does not crave it, does not delight in it, and does not give rise to lust. For that one, the body remains steady, the mind remains steady, inwardly well-established, and well-liberated. Indeed, having cognized an unpleasant mental object with the mind, one is not downcast, has an unagitated mind, an unshrinking mind, and a mind free from ill will. For that one, the body remains steady, the mind remains steady, inwardly well-established, and well-liberated.

Having seen a form with the eye, in regard to pleasant and unpleasant forms, for that one the body is steady and the mind is steady, inwardly well-established, and well-liberated. Having heard a sound with the ear... and so on... having cognized a mental object with the mind, in regard to pleasant and unpleasant mental objects, for that one the body is steady and the mind is steady, inwardly well-established, and well-liberated.

Having seen a form with the eye, one is not impassioned by what is passion-provoking, is not repelled by what is repulsive, is not deluded by what is deluding, is not angered by what is anger-provoking, is not intoxicated by what is intoxicating, and is not afflicted by what is afflicting. Having heard a sound with the ear… and so on… having cognized a mental object with the mind, one is not impassioned by what is passion-provoking, is not repelled by what is repulsive, is not deluded by what is deluding, is not angered by what is anger-provoking, is not intoxicated by what is intoxicating, and is not afflicted by what is afflicting. In the seen, there is merely the seen; in the heard, merely the heard; in the sensed, merely the sensed; in the cognized, merely the cognized. In the seen, one is not smeared; in the heard, one is not smeared; in the sensed, one is not smeared; in the cognized, one is not smeared. Regarding the seen, one dwells without attraction, without aversion, without dependence, without being bound, liberated, dissociated, with a mind that is without boundaries. Regarding the heard… the sensed… the cognized, one dwells without attraction, without aversion, without dependence, without being bound, liberated, dissociated, with a mind that is without boundaries.

The Arahant has an eye; the Arahant sees a form with the eye. There is no desire and lust in the Arahant; the Arahant is well-liberated in mind. The Arahant has an ear; the Arahant hears a sound with the ear. There is no desire and lust in the Arahant; the Arahant is well-liberated in mind. The Arahant has a nose; the Arahant smells an odor with the nose. There is no desire and lust in the Arahant; the Arahant is well-liberated in mind. The Arahant has a tongue; the Arahant tastes a flavor with the tongue… and so on… The Arahant has a body; the Arahant touches a tangible object with the body… and so on… The Arahant has a mind; the Arahant cognizes a mental object with the mind. There is no desire and lust in the Arahant; the Arahant is well-liberated in mind.

The eye has visible forms as its delight, takes pleasure in visible forms, rejoices in visible forms. For the Arahant, that eye is tamed, secured, guarded, and restrained, and he teaches the Dhamma for the restraint of that eye-faculty. The ear has sounds as its delight… and so on… The nose has odors as its delight… The tongue has flavors as its delight, takes pleasure in flavors, rejoices in flavors. For the Arahant, that tongue is tamed, secured, guarded, and restrained, and he teaches the Dhamma for its restraint. The body has tactile sensations as its delight… and so on… The mind has mental phenomena as its delight, takes pleasure in mental phenomena, rejoices in mental phenomena. For the Arahant, that mind is tamed, secured, guarded, and restrained, and he teaches the Dhamma for the restraint of that mind-faculty.

They lead a tamed animal to the assembly; the king mounts the tamed one. Best among humans is the tamed one, who endures abusive speech.

Excellent are tamed mules, and thoroughbreds from Sindh, and great tuskers of the Kuñjara breed; but one with a tamed self is more excellent than these.

For not by these vehicles could one go to the unreached direction, as one with a well-tamed self—a tamed person—goes by means of that which is tamed.

They do not waver amidst the varieties of conceit; they are fully liberated from renewed existence. Having attained the ground of the tamed, they are conquerors in the world.

He whose faculties are developed—internally and externally in the entire world—having penetrated this world and the next, that developed and tamed one awaits his time.

‘Equanimous, always mindful.’ ‘Always’ means at all times, perpetually, constantly, enduringly… up to the last constituent of the lifespan. As to ‘mindful,’ one is mindful for four reasons: one is mindful while developing the establishment of mindfulness as the contemplation of the body in the body; mindful regarding feelings… the mind… and phenomena, developing the establishment of mindfulness as the contemplation of phenomena in phenomena… Such a one is called ‘mindful.’ Thus: equanimous, always mindful.

‘He does not conceive himself as equal in the world.’ He does not generate the conceit, ‘I am equal,’ whether by birth, by clan… or on any other basis. Thus, he does not conceive himself as equal in the world.

‘He is neither superior nor inferior.’ He does not generate excessive conceit by thinking, ‘I am superior,’ whether by birth, by clan, or by any other reason. He does not generate the conceit of inferiority by thinking, ‘I am inferior,’ whether by birth, by clan, or by any other reason. Thus, he is neither superior nor inferior.

‘For him, there are no swellings.’ ‘For him’ means for the Arahant, the one whose cankers are destroyed. ‘Swellings’ refers to the seven swellings: the swelling of lust, the swelling of hatred, the swelling of delusion, the swelling of conceit, the swelling of views, the swelling of defilements, and the swelling of kamma. For him, these swellings do not exist, are not present, are not found, are not obtainable; they have been abandoned, cut off, pacified, tranquilized, are incapable of arising, and have been burned by the fire of knowledge. Thus, for him, there are no swellings.

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

Always equanimous and mindful, he does not conceive in the world of an equal, a superior, or an inferior. For him, there are no swellings.

91.

For whom there is no dependence, who, having known the Dhamma, is independent; for whom there is no craving for existence or for non-existence.

For whom there is no dependence. 'For whom' refers to the Arahant, the one whose cankers are destroyed. 'Dependence' refers to two kinds of dependence: dependence on craving and dependence on views… This is dependence on craving… This is dependence on views. For him, dependence on craving is abandoned, and dependence on views is relinquished. Because dependence on craving is abandoned and dependence on views is relinquished, for him there is no dependence—it does not exist, is not present, is not found, cannot be obtained; it has been abandoned, cut off at the root, pacified, tranquilized, is incapable of arising, and has been burned by the fire of knowledge. Thus, for whom there is no dependence.

Having known the Dhamma, one is not dependent. 'Having known' means having known, understood, weighed, considered, clarified, and made evident: 'All conditioned things are impermanent,' having known, understood, weighed, considered, clarified, and made evident; 'All conditioned things are suffering'… 'All phenomena are without self'… 'Whatever is of a nature to arise, all that is of a nature to cease,' having known, understood, weighed, considered, clarified, and made evident. 'Not dependent' refers to two kinds of dependence: dependence on craving and dependence on views… This is dependence on craving… This is dependence on views. Having abandoned dependence on craving and relinquished dependence on views, one is not dependent on the eye, not dependent on the ear, not dependent on the nose, not dependent on the tongue, not dependent on the body, not dependent on the mind; not dependent on forms… sounds… smells… tastes… touches… a family… a group… a dwelling… not dependent on any seen, heard, sensed, or cognized phenomena—not clinging, not approaching, not holding to, not committed, having gone forth, detached, released, dissociated, one dwells with a mind without boundaries. Thus, having known the Dhamma, one is not dependent.

For existence or non-existence, craving is not found in whom. 'Craving' means craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for touches, and craving for mental phenomena. 'In whom' refers to the Arahant, the one whose cankers are destroyed. 'For existence' means for the view of being; 'for non-existence' means for the view of non-being. 'For existence' means for the eternalist view; 'for non-existence' means for the annihilationist view. 'For existence' means for repeated existence, for repeated destinations, for repeated arising, for repeated rebirth, for the repeated production of an individual existence. In whom craving does not exist, is not present, is not found, cannot be obtained—it has been abandoned, cut off, stilled, tranquilized, is unable to arise, and is burned by the fire of knowledge. Thus, for existence or non-existence, craving is not found in whom.

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“For whom there is no dependence, who, having known the Dhamma, is not dependent; for whom there is no craving for existence or for non-existence.”

92.

Him I call ‘peaceful,’ who is without longing for sensual pleasures; for him, bonds do not exist; he has crossed over attachment.

Him I call ‘peaceful.’ ‘Peaceful’ means thoroughly peaceful, extinguished, tranquilized. ‘I call him’ means I declare him, I speak of him, I state of him, I explain of him, I designate him. Thus, him I call ‘peaceful.’

Without longing for sensual pleasures. ‘Sensual pleasures,’ in summary, are of two kinds: sensual pleasures as objects and sensual pleasures as defilements… These are called sensual pleasures as objects… These are called sensual pleasures as defilements. Having fully known sensual pleasures as objects, and having abandoned, given up, dispelled, brought to an end, and brought to non-existence sensual pleasures as defilements, one is without longing for sensual pleasures, free from sensual desire, with sensual desire given up, with sensual desire vomited, with sensual desire released, with sensual desire abandoned, with sensual desire relinquished; free from lust, with lust departed, with lust given up, with lust vomited, with lust released, with lust abandoned, with lust relinquished; without thirst, extinguished, become cool, experiencing happiness, one dwells with a mind that has become sublime. Thus, without longing for sensual pleasures.

For him, bonds do not exist. ‘Bonds’ are of four kinds: the bodily bond of covetousness, the bodily bond of ill will, the bodily bond of grasping at precepts and vows, and the bodily bond of dogmatic adherence that ‘this alone is truth.’ Lust for one's own view is the bodily bond of covetousness. Hostility and displeasure towards the doctrines of others is the bodily bond of ill will. Grasping at one's own precepts, vows, or precepts and vows is the bodily bond of grasping at precepts and vows. Dogmatic adherence to one's own view that ‘this alone is truth’ is the bodily bond of dogmatic adherence. ‘For him’ refers to the Arahant, the one whose cankers are destroyed. For him, bonds do not exist. For him, bonds are not, do not exist, are not found, cannot be obtained; they are abandoned, cut off, thoroughly pacified, tranquilized, incapable of arising, and burned by the fire of knowledge. Thus, for him, bonds do not exist.

He has crossed over attachment. ‘Attachment’ (visattikā) is a term for craving. It is that passion, fondness… covetousness, greed, the unwholesome root. In what sense is it called ‘attachment’? Because it spreads (visata), it is called attachment; because it is expansive (visālā), it is called attachment; because it pervades (visaṭā), it is called attachment; because it is uneven (visamā), it is called attachment; because it proceeds towards an object (visakkhati), it is called attachment; because it brings poison (visaṃ harati), it is called attachment; because it is deceptive (visaṃvādikā), it is called attachment; because it is the root of poison (visamūlā), it is called attachment; because it is the fruit of poison (visaphalā), it is called attachment; because its enjoyment is poison (visaparibhogā), it is called attachment. Or, alternatively, because that expansive (visālā) craving is spread out (visataṃ) and expanded (vitthatā) over forms… sounds… smells… tastes… touches… a family… a group… a dwelling… over things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, it is called attachment. He has crossed over attachment. He has crossed, gone beyond, passed over, completely overcome, and especially overcome this clinging craving. Thus, he has crossed over attachment.

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“Him I declare ‘the pacified one,’ who has no concern for sensual pleasures; for him, the bonds do not exist; he has crossed over attachment.”

93.

For him, there exist no sons or livestock, no field or land. Neither the view of a self nor of annihilation is found in him.

“For him there are no sons, livestock, no field or site.” ‘Na’ (no) is a denial. ‘Tassa’ (for him) refers to the Arahant, one whose cankers are destroyed. ‘Puttā’ (sons) are four: a son born of oneself, a son born in the field, a given son, and a resident pupil. ‘Pasavo’ (livestock) means goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants and cattle, horses and mares. ‘Khettaṃ’ (field) means a fine rice field, paddy field, mung bean field, black gram field, barley field, wheat field, or sesame field. ‘Vatthu’ (site) means a house-site, granary-site, front-yard site, back-yard site, monastery-park site, or monastery-site. “For him there are no sons, livestock, no field or site” means: For him, there is no possession of sons, livestock, fields, or sites—they do not exist, are not, are not found, are not obtained; they have been abandoned, utterly cut off, especially pacified, calmed again, are incapable of arising, and have been burned by the fire of knowledge. This is the meaning of the phrase: “For him there are no sons, livestock, no field or site.”

“Neither ‘self’ nor ‘not-self’ is found in him.” ‘Attā’ (self) refers to the view of self; ‘nirattā’ (not-self) refers to the annihilation view. As ‘self,’ there is nothing grasped; as ‘not-self,’ there is nothing to be released. For one for whom there is nothing grasped, there is nothing to be released. For one for whom there is nothing to be released, there is nothing grasped. The Arahant has transcended grasping and releasing, has gone beyond increase and decrease. He has lived the life, has practiced the conduct… and so on… for him there is no renewed existence, which is the saṃsāra of birth and death. This is the meaning of the phrase: “Neither ‘self’ nor ‘not-self’ is found in him.”

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“For him there are no sons, livestock, field, or site; and in him neither ‘self’ nor ‘not-self’ is found.”

94.

That fault by which ordinary people, and also ascetics and brahmins, might speak of him—that is not put before him. Therefore, he does not tremble amidst criticisms.

“By which ordinary people, and also ascetics and brahmins, might speak of him.” As for ‘ordinary people’ (puthujjanā): because they generate (‘janenti’) many (‘puthu’) defilements (‘kilese’), they are called ‘ordinary people’; because they have not destroyed (‘avihita’) the many kinds of personality-view (‘puthu…sakkāyadiṭṭhikā’), they are called ‘ordinary people’; because they look up to the faces (‘mukhullokikā’) of many teachers (‘puthu satthārānaṃ’), they are called ‘ordinary people’; because they construct (‘abhisaṅkharonti’) many various formations (‘puthu nānābhisaṅkhāre’), they are called ‘ordinary people’; because they are swept away (‘vuyhanti’) by many various floods (‘puthu nānāoghehi’), they are called ‘ordinary people’; because they are tormented (‘santappenti’) by many various torments (‘puthu nānāsantāpehi’), they are called ‘ordinary people’; because they are burned (‘pariḍayhanti’) by many various burnings (‘puthu nānāpariḷāhehi’), they are called ‘ordinary people’; because they are attached (‘rattā’), greedy (‘giddhā’), tied (‘gadhitā’), infatuated (‘mucchiṭā’), clinging (‘ajjhosannā’), stuck (‘laggā’), ensnared (‘laggitā’), and fettered (‘palibuddhā’) to the five strands of sensual pleasure, they are called ‘ordinary people’; because they are covered (‘āvutā’), hindered (‘nivutā’), enveloped (‘ovutā’), shut in (‘pihitā’), concealed (‘paṭicchannā’), and overturned (‘paṭikujjitā’) by the five hindrances, they are called ‘ordinary people’. As for ‘ascetics’ (samaṇā), it refers to any whatsoever who are outside this Dispensation, who have approached and undertaken the wandering life. As for ‘brahmins’ (brāhmaṇā), it refers to any whatsoever who are accustomed to saying ‘bho’. “By which ordinary people, and also ascetics and brahmins, might speak of him.” Ordinary people might speak of him with that lust, with that hate, with that delusion, with that conceit, with that view, with that restlessness, with that doubt, with those underlying tendencies—as ‘attached,’ or ‘hostile,’ or ‘deluded,’ or ‘fettered,’ or ‘one who has gone to distraction,’ or ‘undecided,’ or ‘obstinate.’ Those formations have been abandoned; because of the abandonment of formations, by which they might speak of him in terms of destiny—as a ‘hell-being,’ or one in the ‘ghost-realm,’ or a ‘human being,’ or a ‘divine being,’ or one ‘with form,’ or one ‘without form,’ or one ‘with perception,’ or one ‘without perception,’ or one with ‘neither-perception-nor-non-perception.’ That cause does not exist, that condition does not exist, that reason does not exist by which they might speak of him, talk of him, recite about him, point him out, or designate him. This is the meaning of “By which ordinary people, and also ascetics and brahmins, might speak of him.”

“That is not placed in front by him.” ‘His’ refers to the Arahant, one whose taints are destroyed. ‘Placing in front’ is twofold: placing craving in front and placing view in front… This is placing craving in front… This is placing view in front. For him, placing craving in front is abandoned, and placing view in front is relinquished. Because placing craving in front is abandoned and placing view in front is relinquished, he does not conduct himself by putting craving or view before him; he is without the banner of craving, the standard of craving, or the sovereignty of craving; he is without the banner of view, the standard of view, or the sovereignty of view; he does not conduct himself surrounded by craving or by view. Thus, “that is not placed in front by him.”

“Therefore, he is not shaken in disputes.” ‘Therefore’ means: for that reason, on that account, from that cause, due to that condition, from that source. In disputes, accusations, blame, censure, ill-repute, or disparagement, ‘he is not shaken’ means he is not shaken, does not stir, does not move, does not tremble, does not tremble violently, and does not tremble all around. Thus, “he is not shaken in disputes.”

Thus spoke the Blessed One:

“That by which ordinary people, and also ascetics and brahmins, might speak of him—that is not placed in front by him. Therefore, he is not shaken in disputes.”

95.

The sage, free from greed and without selfishness, does not speak of himself as superior, nor as equal, nor as inferior. Not being subject to conceiving, he does not enter into conceiving.

“Free from greed, without stinginess.” Greed (gedha) is said to be craving (taṇhā). Whatever passion, intense passion... covetousness, greed, an unwholesome root. For whom this greed is abandoned, utterly cut off, pacified, calmed, incapable of arising, and burned by the fire of knowledge—he is called 'one free from greed' (vītagedha). He is not greedy for forms... for things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, he is not greedy (agiddha), not tied (agadhita), not infatuated (amucchita), not possessed (anajjhosita); he is free from greed (vītagedha), has greed departed (vigatagedha), has greed discarded (cattagedha), has greed vomited (vantagedha), has greed released (muttagedha), has greed abandoned (pahīnagedha), has greed relinquished (paṭinissaṭṭhagedha), is without craving (nicchāta)... he dwells with a self that has become sublime (brahmabhūtena)—thus, 'one free from greed'. “Without stinginess” (amaccharī): Stinginess (macchariya) refers to the five kinds of stinginess: stinginess regarding dwellings, stinginess regarding families, stinginess regarding gains, stinginess regarding appearance, and stinginess regarding the Dhamma. Whatever is of such a nature... a grip (gāha)—this is called stinginess. For whom this stinginess is abandoned, utterly cut off, pacified, calmed, incapable of arising, and burned by the fire of knowledge—he is called 'one without stinginess' (amaccharī). Thus, “free from greed, without stinginess.”

“The sage does not speak in terms of superiority, equality, or inferiority.” Regarding 'sage' (muni): Sagehood (mona) is said to be knowledge (ñāṇa)... having transcended the net of attachments, he is a sage. He does not say, “I am superior,” nor “I am equal,” nor “I am inferior”—he does not say, declare, state, show, or speak of it. Thus, “the sage does not speak in terms of superiority, equality, or inferiority.”

“He does not go to conception, he is one who does not conceive.” Regarding “conception”: there are two conceptions—the conception that is craving and the conception that is view... this is the conception that is craving... this is the conception that is view. For him, the conception that is craving is abandoned, the conception that is view is relinquished; because the conception that is craving has been abandoned and because the conception that is view has been relinquished, he does not go to, does not approach, does not draw near, does not grasp, does not hold on to, and does not adhere to the conception that is craving or the conception that is view—this is “he does not go to conception.” Regarding “one who does not conceive”: “conception” refers to two conceptions—the conception that is craving and the conception that is view... this is the conception that is craving... this is the conception that is view. For him, the conception that is craving is abandoned, the conception that is view is relinquished; for him, because the conception that is craving has been abandoned and because the conception that is view has been relinquished, he does not conceive, does not generate, does not produce, does not bring into existence, or does not bring into renewed existence the conception that is craving or the conception that is view—this is “he does not go to conception, he is one who does not conceive.”

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“The sage, free from greed and without stinginess, does not declare himself among the superior, nor among the equal, nor among the inferior. He who is free from conceptions does not go to conception.”

96.

“He for whom there is nothing of his own in the world, who does not sorrow over what is non-existent, and who does not go astray with regard to any dhammas, he indeed is called 'the peaceful one'.”

“For whom there is nothing of his own in the world.” “For whom” refers to the Arahant, one whose cankers are destroyed. “There is nothing of his own in the world” means: for that person, there is no grasping, holding, adhering to, being engrossed in, or being resolved upon anything related to form, feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness with the thought, “Let this be for me,” or “Let this be for others.” It does not exist, it is not present... it is burned by the fire of knowledge—thus, “for whom there is nothing of his own in the world.” “And who does not sorrow over what is non-existent”: He does not sorrow over a thing that has changed, nor does he sorrow on account of a thing that has changed. He does not sorrow, thinking: “My eye has changed,” or “My ear... my nose... my tongue... my body... my mind... my forms... my sounds... my smells... my tastes... my tactile objects... my family... my group... my dwelling... my gain... my fame... my praise... my pleasure... my robe... my almsfood... my lodging... my medicinal requisites... my mother... my father... my brother... my sister... my son... my daughter... my friends... my associates... my relatives... my blood relatives have changed.” He does not sorrow, does not become weary, does not lament, does not beat his breast and wail, and does not fall into confusion. In this way also, the meaning of “and who does not sorrow over what is non-existent” is to be understood.

Or else, when afflicted, overwhelmed, and beset by a non-existent, painful feeling, he does not sorrow, does not become distressed, does not lament, does not beat his breast and wail, and does not fall into confusion. When afflicted, overwhelmed, and beset by eye disease… ear disease… nose disease… tongue disease… body disease… head disease… outer ear disease… mouth disease… tooth disease… a cough… asthma… catarrh… a burning sensation… a fever… stomach disease… fainting… dysentery… colic… cholera… leprosy… boils… a skin disease… consumption… epilepsy… ringworm… itch… scabies… scratches… skin eruptions… a blood disorder… a bile disorder… diabetes… shoulder pain… abscesses… fistula… an illness arising from bile… an illness arising from phlegm… an illness arising from wind… an illness arising from a combination of these… an illness arising from a change of seasons… an illness arising from improper conduct… an illness arising from external attack… an illness arising from the result of kamma… by cold… heat… hunger… thirst… or by contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and creeping things, he does not sorrow, does not become distressed, does not lament, does not beat his breast and wail, and does not fall into confusion. In this way also, the meaning of 'and who does not sorrow over what is non-existent' is to be understood.

Or alternatively, when something is non-existent, is not found, is unobtainable, one does not sorrow, is not wearied, does not lament, does not beat the breast and wail, and does not fall into confusion, thinking: 'Alas, indeed, I do not have that! If only I had that! Indeed, I do not obtain that!' In this way also, one 'does not sorrow over what is non-existent.' And 'one does not go astray in regard to phenomena' means: one does not go the wrong course through desire, does not go the wrong course through hatred, does not go the wrong course through delusion, and does not go the wrong course through fear. One does not go by the power of lust, by the power of hatred, by the power of delusion, by the power of conceit, by the power of views, by the power of restlessness, by the power of doubt, or by the power of underlying tendencies. And one is not moved, led, carried away, or drawn in by factious states. Thus, 'one does not go astray in regard to phenomena.'

“He is truly called peaceful” means: He is called peaceful, calmed, especially peaceful, extinguished, and fully tranquil. He is said to be so, spoken of, declared, recited, explained, and termed as such. Thus, “He is truly called peaceful.”

Therefore, the Blessed One said:

“For whom there is nothing of his own in the world, and who does not sorrow over what is non-existent; who does not go astray in regard to phenomena—he, truly, is called peaceful.”

The tenth exposition of the Purābhedasutta.