Introduction

With the present chapter I turn to the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta, a discourse of particular significance, as it describes a supramundane version of the path-factors.[n.1] MN 117 at MN III 71,8 to 78,18. This description is absent from a Madhyama-āgama parallel and from a parallel found in Śamathadeva's compendium of discourse quotations from the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.[n.2] D 4094 nyu 43b7 to 47b4 or Q 5595 thu 83a7 to 87b2; whose title is given in an uddāna at D 4094 ju 235b4 or Q 5595 tu 269a5 as the Discourse on "The Great Forty", chen po bzhi bcu; cf. also Skilling 1997: 341f. In addition to this Tibetan parallel, parts of a version of the present discourse have been preserved in Sanskrit fragments; cf. SHT V 1125 in Sander 1985: 120 and SHT VIII 1919A in Bechert 2000: 100. SHT V 1125 R1–2 has part of the summing up of the exposition into two sets of twenty found in MN 117 at MN III 77,21, while R3 has preserved part of the shift from the eightfold noble path of the disciple in training to the tenfold noble path of the arahant found in MN 117 at MN III 76,7 (cf. also SHT VIII 1919A), although the exposition in the Sanskrit version seems to have been formulated in a manner that differs and also appears to have stood at a different point in the Sanskrit version, namely right after the summing up of the exposition into two sets of twenty.

Unlike its parallels, the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta distinguishes three instances of the path-factors right view, right intention, right speech, right action and right livelihood: wrong path-factor, mundane right path-factor and supramundane right path-factor.[n.3] I already drew attention to several of the points made in the present section in Anālayo 2005: 98–100. The perceived importance of this description of supramundane pathfactors can be seen in a discussion on the nature of the supramundane noble path, presented in the commentary on the Vibhaṅga, according to which a monk should ask another monk if he is a "reciter of the 'great forty'".[n.4] Vibh-a 320,26: tvaṃ tāva mahācattāḷīsakabhāṇako hosi na hosī ti pucchitabbo. This question reflects the significance that was attached to the present discourse, whose recall the commentaries considered an indispensable requirement for being able to engage in a discussion on the supramundane noble path.[n.5] While Adikaram 1946/1994: 31 and Goonesekera 1968: 689 simply list the mahācattārīsakabhāṇaka in their treatments of the bhāṇaka tradition, without attempting an explanation, Mori 1990: 125 takes the expression mahācattārīsakabhāṇaka to be an example of "Bhāṇakas who further specialized in some particular suttas". Alternatively, perhaps the expression mahācattārīsakabhā- ṇaka is used in the present context simply in order to inquire if the other monk remembers the exposition given in this particular discourse, equivalent to asking him: mahācattārīsakaṃ dhāresi? Be that as it may, the use of the term mahācattārīsakabhāṇaka definitely highlights the importance of MN 117, which due to its unique exposition would have been and still is an important reference point for discussions on the supramundane path.

Closer scrutiny of the discourse itself shows that some of the Pāli terms used in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta's definition of supramundane right intention, such as "fixing" (appanā) of the mind and "mental inclination" (cetaso abhiniropanā), are not found in other discourses and belong to the type of language used only in the Abhidharma and historically later Pāli texts.[n.6] MN 117 at MN III 73,15 lists takko vitakko saṅkappo appanā vyappanā cetaso abhiniropanā to define sammāsaṅkappo ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo. The terms appanā, vyappanā and cetaso abhiniropanā do not seem to recur at all in other discourses. The whole listing recurs verbatim in Dhs 10,17 and in Vibh 86,8: takko vitakko saṅkappo appanā vyappanā cetaso abhiniropanā.

In fact, the terms employed to define the supramundane pathfactors of right intention, right speech, right action and right livelihood are precisely the same as those used in the Vibhaṅga of the Pāli Abhidhammapiṭaka. Notably, the Vibhaṅga uses these terms in its exposition of the path-factors according to the specific method of the Abhidharma, different from the terms the same work uses when it analyses these path-factors according to the method of the discourses.[n.7] This is the exposition of the fourth noble truth from the viewpoint of the Abhidharma, abhidhammabhājaniya, at Vibh 106,3, preceded by treating the same subject from the viewpoint of the discourses in the suttantabhājaniya. The same Abhidharmic treatment recurs also at Dhs 63,21. That is, from the viewpoint of the Vibhaṅga this type of terminology is distinctly Abhidharmic, differing from the mode of exposition found in the discourses.

Moreover, the treatment of the path-factors from a supramundane viewpoint in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta qualifies the mundane wholesome path-factors as "with influx" and as "ripening in attachment".[n.8] E.g., for the path-factor of right intention in MN 117 at MN III 73,6: sāsavo ... upadhivepakko. Yet, the definitions given in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta for the path-factors of mundane right intention, right speech, right action and right livelihood recur in other discourses as part of the standard definition of the noble eightfold path that leads to the eradication of dukkha.[n.9] MN 117 at MN III 73,9, MN III 74,3+30 and MN III 75,20, paralleling the definitions of these path-factors, e.g., in MN 141 at MN III 251,16+19+23+26. Thus, what according to other discourses leads to the eradication of dukkha, in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta is presented as something that ripens in attachment and is associated with the influxes.

The different attitude towards the mundane path-factors can also be seen in the circumstance that the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta explicitly considers each of the supramundane path-factors as a "factor of the path" (maggaṅga), a qualification it does not use in relation to their mundane counterparts. Yet, the mundane pathfactors would certainly also merit being reckoned as "factors of the path". The restricted use of this qualification for the supramundane path-factors becomes understandable once it is recognized that this passage employs distinct Abhidharmic terminology. That is, the use of the qualification "factor of the path" (maggaṅga) is based on the idea of the "path" as understood in the Abhidharma and the commentaries, where, instead of referring to a prolonged period of practice, "path" stands only for the moment when the four stages of awakening are attained.[n.10] Cf. also Gethin 1992: 131f.

Thus, the reference to a "factor of the path" in this part of the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta has in view only the mind-moment during which the supramundane path is experienced. From this viewpoint, the mundane path-factors are indeed not fit to be reckoned "factors of the path".

Similarly, the qualification "without influxes" refers, in accordance with the use of the same term in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, only to the four paths and fruits.[n.11] Dhs 196,4: ariyāpannā maggā ca maggaphalāni ca ... ime dhammā anāsavā. That is, the exposition of the supramundane path-factors in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta does not seem to refer to the path-factors of an arahant, which is what the term "without influxes" usually refers to in the discourses, but rather describes the path-factors present at the moment of attaining any of the four levels of awakening.

The same focus on the mind-moment of awakening can be seen in the circumstance that, instead of expounding supramundane right view and right intention in terms of their content, the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta presents them in terms of the state of mind of one who experiences any of the stages of awakening.[n.12] Bodhi in Ñāṇamoli 1995/2005: 1328 note 1103 comments that "the definition is formulated by way of the cognitive function rather than the objective content of right view". In the case of the three path-factors of right speech, right action and right livelihood, the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta refers simply to the mental act of restraint. In this context, the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta uses a string of terms that also does not recur in this way in other discourses, while the same string of terms is found in the same context in Abhidharma works of the Pāli canon.[n.13] MN 117 at MN III 74,9+35 and MN III 75,25: ārati virati paṭivirati veramaṇī, a string of terms that recurs in the definition of these path-factors from the viewpoint of the Abhidharma, the abhidhammabhājaniya, given in Vibh 106,31+36 and Vibh 107,4; cf. also Dhs 63,35 and Dhs 64,2+7. Clearly, this presentation is pervaded by a distinct Abhidharmic flavour.

At this point, the question could be posed to what extent the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta's overall exposition requires a presentation of the supramundane path-factors. According to the preamble found similarly in the parallel versions of the discourse, the main intent of the present exposition is to show the supportive function of the other seven path-factors for right concentration. That is, the point at stake does not seem to be an exposition of the path-factors individually, but rather their interrelation as a basis for developing right concentration, and in particular the function of right view, right effort and right mindfulness as means of correction and support for the other path-factors.[n.14] Meisig 1987: 233. This intent of the exposition would not require a supramundane description of the path-factors.

This becomes all the more evident with the parallel versions, where such a supramundane description is not found. Nevertheless, the main topic of the discourse – the development of right concentration based on the other path factors and in particular on the cooperation of right view, right effort and right mindfulness – is presented with similar, if not increased clarity in these versions, as can be seen from the Madhyama-āgama discourse translated below.

Subsequent to the translation, I survey some of the differences between the parallel versions of this discourse and then translate two Saṃyukta-āgama discourses which, despite not being parallels properly speaking to the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta, do have similar supramundane versions of the path-factors.

---

Translation (1)

Discourse on the Noble Path[n.15] The translated text is MĀ 189 at T I 735b27 to 736c25; a comparative study can be found in Anālayo 2011a: 657–664. A translation of MĀ 189 into German can be found in Meisig 1987. Though in a few instances my rendering of the Chinese original differs, there can be no doubt about my indebtedness to the work done by Meisig on MĀ 189. The title of MĀ 189 reflects the theme of the noble path, broached at the outset of the different versions of the discourse in terms of the eighth path-factor of concentration developed in dependence on the other seven path-factors. The Pāli and Tibetan versions instead take their title from a later section of the discourse, which adds up the ten right path-factors, the ten types of wholesome states that arise from them, the ten wrong path-factors and the ten types of unwholesome states that arise from them, arriving at a total count presented under the heading of being a teaching on "the great forty", mahācattārīsaka, 四十大, chen po bzhi bcu.

1. Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was dwelling among the Kurus, in the Kuru town of Kammāsadhamma.[n.16] MN 117 at MN III 71,8 instead has Jeta's Grove at Sāvatthī as its location. At that time the Blessed One told the monks: "There is one path for beings to gain purification, for being separated from worry, sadness and tears, for eradicating dejection, pain, remorse and anxiety, for easily attaining the [right] method,[n.17] MĀ 189 at T I 735c2: 如法. As already noted by Meisig 1987: 235 note 6, 如法 corresponds to the "method", ñāya, mentioned in MN 10 at MN I 56,2; cf. also Hirakawa 1997: 348, who lists nyāya as one of the possible meanings rendered by 如法. namely noble right concentration, with its arousing, its supports, and also with its equipment in having seven factors.[n.18] This introductory qualification of noble concentration as the one path (一 道) for the purification of beings is not found in MN 117, although it has a counterpart in D 4094 nyu 44a2 or Q 5595 thu 83b1, which speaks of a "single vehicle", theg pa ni gcig; on references to the 'single vehicle' in Saṃyukta-āgama discourses cf. the discussion in Nattier 2007. In general, the Pāli discourses seem to reserve the qualification ekāyano – on which cf., e.g., Gethin 1992: 59–66, Kuan 2001: 164, Anālayo 2003c: 27–29 and Nattier 2007 – for the practice of satipaṭṭhāna; cf., e.g., MN 10 at MN I 55,31. As pointed out by Nattier 2007: 194, the present occurrence in MĀ 189 shows how "in contrast to the Pāli ... the Madhyamāgama did not limit the use of the ekāyana refrain to contexts dealing with the four smṛtyupasthānas".

2. "In regard to this noble right concentration, [I will] explain its arousing, its supports and also its equipment.

3. "What are the seven [factors]? [They are] right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort and right mindfulness. If based on arousing these seven factors, on being supported [by them] and equipped [with them], the mind progresses well and attains one-pointedness – then this is reckoned noble right concentration with its arousing, with its supports and with its equipment. Why?

34. "Right view gives rise to right intention, right intention gives rise to right speech, right speech gives rise to right action, right action gives rise to right livelihood, right livelihood gives rise to right effort, right effort gives rise to right mindfulness, and right mindfulness gives rise to right concentration.[n.19] This sequential build-up of the path-factors is found in the Pāli and Tibetan versions only after the detailed exposition of the path-factors, MN 117 at MN III 76,1 and D 4094 nyu 46b2 or Q 5595 thu 86a6.

"The noble disciple who has in this way rightly concentrated the mind will swiftly eradicate sensual desire, ill will and delusion. The noble disciple who has in this way rightly liberated the mind, swiftly comes to know that birth has been extinguished, the holy life has been established, what had to be done has been done, there will be no experiencing of a further existence, knowing this as it really is.[n.20] This paragraph has no counterpart in MN 117, though a similar presentation occurs in D 4094 nyu 46b3 or Q 5595 thu 86a7.

4. "Herein, right view is foremost ahead. If one sees that wrong view is wrong view – this is reckoned right view. If one sees that right view is right view – this is also reckoned right view.

5. "What is wrong view? This view, namely: 'There is no [efficacy] in giving, there is no [efficacy] in offerings [during a sacrifice], there is no [efficacy] in reciting hymns [during a sacrifice],[n.21] MĀ 189 at T I 735c15: 呪說, which together with the preceding 齋 appear to correspond to the reference to what is "offered" and "sacrificed", yiṭṭha and huta, in MN 117 at MN III 71,27. While the two Pāli terms are similar in meaning, the rendering in MĀ 189 seems to reflect two aspects of a sacrifice: the performance of offerings and the recitation of hymns. there are no wholesome and evil deeds, there is no result of wholesome and evil deeds, there is neither this world nor another world, there is no [obligation towards one's] father or mother,[n.22] The Pāli and Tibetan versions at this point also mention the denial of the existence of spontaneously arisen beings, MN 117 at MN III 71,30: n' atthi sattā opapātikā and D 4094 nyu 44a6 or Q 5595 thu 83b7: sems can brdzus (D: rdzus) te byung ba rnams med do. On such spontaneously arisen beings cf. also Windisch 1908: 184–194 and Manné 1995: 78–80. in the world there are no worthy men who have reached a wholesome attainment, [n.23] For a discussion of my rendering "worthy men" cf. below note 30 page 498. who are well gone and have progressed well, who by their own knowledge and experience abide in having themselves realized this world and the other world' – this is reckoned wrong view.

7. "What is right view?[n.24] At this point, MN 117 at MN III 72,4 introduces a distinction between two types of right view (§6 in Ñāṇamoli 1995/2005: 934): that which is affected by influxes and that which is not affected by them; followed by expounding these two in detail (§§7–8 in Ñāṇamoli 1995/2005: 935); cf. the discussion below. MN 117 adopts the same twofold distinction in its exposition of right intention, right speech, right action and right livelihood, a difference to which I already drew attention in Anālayo 2005: 98–100. This view, namely: 'there is [efficacy] in giving, there is [efficacy] in offerings, there is [efficacy] in reciting hymns, there are wholesome and evil deeds, there is a result of wholesome and evil deeds, there are this world and another world, there is [obligation towards one's] father or mother, in the world there are worthy men who have reached a wholesome attainment, who are well gone and have progressed well, who by their own knowledge and experience abide in having themselves realized this world and the other world' – this is reckoned right view.

9. "To see that wrong view is wrong view – this is reckoned right view; and to see that right view is right view – this is also reckoned right view. Having understood like this, one then seeks to train [oneself], wishing to abandon wrong view and to accomplish right view – this is reckoned right effort. With mindfulness a monk abandons wrong view and accomplishes right view – this is reckoned right mindfulness. These three factors go along with right view, from view to effort.[n.25] MĀ 189 at T I 735c26: 此三支隨正見, 從見方便. The implication appears to be that the three factors (view, mindfulness and effort) are required for a development that sets in with view (i.e., recognizing a wrong path-factor) and culminates in effort (i.e., abandoning the wrong path-factor). MN 117 at MN III 72,26 instead speaks of the three factors revolving and circling around right view, tayo dhammā sammādiṭṭhiṃ anuparidhāvanti anuparivattanti, while D 4094 nyu 44b5 or Q 5595 thu 84a7 indicates that the three path-factors follow after view, lam gyi yan lag gsum po ʼdi dag ni lta ba nyid kyi rjes su ʼjug pa ste.

For this reason, right view is foremost ahead.

10. "If one sees that wrong intention is wrong intention – this is reckoned right 〈view〉.[n.26] MĀ 189 at T I 735c28 actually reckons recognizing wrong intention for what it is as an instance of "right intention", 若見邪志是邪志者, 是謂正志. The parallel versions, however, present such recognition as an instance of right view, sammādiṭṭhi / dag paʼi lta ba; cf. MN 117 at MN III 73,1 and D 4094 nyu 44b6 or Q 5595 thu 84b1 (though Q 5595 thu 84a8 has a mistake of a similar type, as it reckons right view to be when on rightly sees "wrong intention as wrong view", log paʼi rtog pa la log paʼi lta baʼo (D correctly reads: rtog paʼo); cf. also note 27 below). That recognition of wrong intention is an instance of right 'view' also suggests itself from the context, hence I take this presentation in MĀ 189 to be a transmission error and emend to 是謂正見; cf. also Meisig 1987: 238 note 27. The same pattern recurs in MĀ 189 also in relation to the introductory statement on right speech, right action and right livelihood. If one sees that right intention is right intention – this is also reckoned right 〈view〉.

11. "What is wrong intention? Thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will and thoughts of harming – this is reckoned wrong intention .

13. "What is right intention? Thoughts of dispassion, thoughts of non-ill will and thoughts of non-harming – this is reckoned right intention.

15. "To see that wrong intention is wrong intention – this is reckoned right 〈view〉; and to see that right intention is right intention – this is also reckoned right 〈view〉. Having understood like this, one then seeks to train [oneself], wishing to abandon wrong intention and to accomplish right intention – this is reckoned right effort.[n.27] The transmission error found in the Q edition of the Tibetan version, mentioned above in note 26, recurs at this juncture and is here also found in the D edition: in the context of describing the role of effort and mindfulness for abandoning wrong intention and arousing right intention both editions speak of 'view', when 'intention' would instead be required, thereby confusing log par rtog pa and yang dag paʼi rtog pa with log par lta ba and yang dag paʼi lta ba; cf. D 4094 nyu 45a2 or Q 5595 thu 84b4. As in the case noted above, this error differs from the one found in MĀ 189, as it replaces the path-factor with view, whereas MĀ 189 replaces view with the path-factor. Nevertheless, the similarity in type of this error shows how easily such confusion can arise in a repetitive exposition during the prolonged period of transmission of the texts. With mindfulness a monk abandons wrong intention and accomplishes right intention – this is reckoned right mindfulness. These three factors go along with right intention, from view [to] effort. For this reason, right view is foremost ahead.

16. "If one sees that wrong speech is wrong speech – this is reckoned right 〈view〉.[n.28] MĀ 189 at T I 736a7 actually reads: 若見邪語是邪語者, 是謂正語, "if one sees that wrong speech is wrong speech – this is reckoned right speech"; cf. above note 26. If one sees that right speech is right speech – this is also reckoned right 〈view〉.

17. "What is wrong speech? False speech, divisive speech, harsh speech and frivolous speech – this is reckoned wrong speech.

19. "What is right speech? Abstention from false speech, from divisive speech, from harsh speech and from frivolous speech – this is reckoned right speech.

21. "To see that wrong speech is wrong speech – this is reckoned right 〈view〉; and to see that right speech is right speech – this is also reckoned right 〈view〉. Having understood like this, one then seeks to train [oneself], wishing to abandon wrong speech and to accomplish right speech – this is reckoned right effort.[n.29] The Tibetan version continues with the transmission error noted above in note 27, as its exposition of the role of effort and mindfulness for abandoning wrong speech speaks instead of wrong 'view', whereas when it comes to the arousing of right speech it correctly speaks of right 'speech', D 4094 nyu 45a7 or Q 5595 thu 85a2, reading de de ltar shes nas log paʼi lta ba spang baʼi phyir ʼbad par byed cing, yang dag paʼi ngag nye bar bsgrub paʼi phyir yang dag paʼi rtsol ba byed de. Thus here the transmission error disappears in the midst of the sentence in both editions, and the correct readings are found for the remaining path-factors (though an intrusion of lta ba out of context can again be found in a later section of the discourse, in an exposition of how each right path-factor abandons its wrong counterpart, D 4094 nyu 47a4 or Q 5595 thu 87a1, where right knowledge, instead of leading to the relinquishment of wrong knowledge, leads to the relinquishment of wrong 'view', yang dag paʼi shes pas log paʼi lta ba spong bar ʼgyur te, and to the relinquishment of the unwholesome qualities that arise in dependence on wrong 'view'). It is noteworthy that, once the above noted error had happened, the evident inconsistency found in midsentence was not subsequently rectified. With mindfulness a monk abandons wrong speech and accomplishes right speech – this is reckoned right mindfulness. These three factors go along with right speech, from view [to] effort. For this reason, right view is foremost ahead.

22. "If one sees that wrong action is wrong action – this is reckoned right 〈view〉.[n.30] MĀ 189 at T I 736a15 actually reads: 若見邪業是邪業者, 是謂正業, "if one sees that wrong action is wrong action – this is reckoned right action"; cf. above note 26. If one sees that right action is right action – this is also reckoned right 〈view〉.

23. "What is wrong action? Killing living beings, taking what is not given and sexual misconduct – this is reckoned wrong action.

25. "What is right action? Abstention from killing, from taking what is not given and from sexual misconduct – this is reckoned right action.

27. "To see that wrong action is wrong action – this is reckoned right 〈view〉; and to see that right action is right action – this is also reckoned right 〈view〉. Having understood like this, one then seeks to train [oneself], wishing to abandon wrong action and to accomplish right action – this is reckoned right effort. With mindfulness a monk abandons wrong action and accomplishes right action – this is reckoned right mindfulness. These three factors go along with right action, from view [to] effort. For this reason, right view is foremost ahead.

28. "If one sees that wrong livelihood is wrong livelihood – this is reckoned right 〈view〉.[n.31] MĀ 189 at T I 736a24 actually reads: 若見邪命是邪命者, 是謂正命, "if one sees that wrong livelihood is wrong livelihood – this is reckoned right livelihood"; cf. above note 26. If one sees that right livelihood is right livelihood – this is also reckoned right 〈view〉.

29. "What is wrong livelihood? If there is seeking [requisites] with a dissatisfied mind, having recourse to various inappropriate types of spells,[n.32] MĀ 189 at T I 736a26: 種畜生之呪. As already pointed out by Meisig 1987: 241 note 48, 畜生 corresponds to tiracchāna in the expression tiracchānavijjā, used, e.g., in Vin II 139,31 or in Vin IV 305,7 for wrong types of livelihood (on tiracchāna cf. also above note 6 page 83). A reference to 呪 recurs in a definition of wrong livelihood in MĀ 31 at T I 469b11, which refers to "various types of tricks, skills and spells", 種種伎, 術, 呪. A parallel to MĀ 31, T 32 at T I 816b21, speaks in the same context of 畜生業, literally "animal deeds", an expression where 畜生 also conveys the sense "inappropriate". The same 畜生業 recurs also in T 21 at T I 265a10, an individual translation that parallels the Brahmajāla-sutta (DN 1), to introduce various types of wrong livelihood. Under the heading 畜生業, T 21 at T I 265a21 then gives examples for wrong livelihood related to 呪, such as, e.g., spells that help overcoming an adversary, etc. These occurrences suggest 種畜生之呪 to stand for "various inappropriate spells", though in the context of the earlier definitions of wrong and right view the same character rather appears to stand for "hymns"; cf. also above note 21. making a living by wrong forms of livelihood; if one does not seek robes and blankets in accordance with the Dharma, but by means of what is against the Dharma, does not seek beverages and food, beds and couches, medicine [or] any [other] requisites of life in accordance with the Dharma, but by means of what is against the Dharma – this is reckoned wrong livelihood.

31. "What is right livelihood? If there is no seeking [requisites] with a dissatisfied mind, not having recourse to various inappropriate types of spells, not making a living by wrong forms of livelihood; if one seeks robes and blankets with what is in accordance with the Dharma, by means of the Dharma, seeks beverages and food, beds and couches, medicine [or] any [other] requisites of life with what is in accordance with the Dharma, by means of the Dharma – this is reckoned right livelihood.[n.33] MN 117 at MN III 75,12 instead contrasts making one's livelihood in a wrong way by "scheming, cajoling, hinting, reproaching, seeking [to get] gain [in exchange for another] gain", kuhanā lapanā nemittikatā nippesikatā lābhena lābhaṃ nijigiṃsanatā, to overcoming wrong types of livelihood and undertaking one's livelihood rightly (for a definition of the wrong ways of livelihood mentioned here cf. Vibh 352,21).

33. "To see that wrong livelihood is wrong livelihood – this is reckoned right 〈view〉; and to see that right livelihood is right livelihood – this is also reckoned right 〈view〉. Having understood like this, one then seeks to train [oneself], wishing to abandon wrong livelihood and to accomplish right livelihood – this is reckoned right effort. With mindfulness a monk abandons wrong livelihood and accomplishes right livelihood – this is reckoned right mindfulness. These three factors go along with right livelihood, from view [to] effort. For this reason, right view is foremost ahead.

"What is right effort? A monk cultivates desire for the abandoning of already arisen unwholesome states, he seeks means, is energetic and diligent in arousing the mind towards cessation. He cultivates desire for the non-arising of not yet arisen unwholesome states, he seeks means, is energetic and diligent in arousing the mind towards cessation. He cultivates desire for the arising of not yet arisen wholesome states, he seeks means, is energetic and diligent in arousing the mind towards cessation. He cultivates desire for the stabilizing of already arisen wholesome states without loss or regress, for their increase and expansion, for their development and full implementation, he seeks means, is energetic and diligent in arousing the mind towards cessation. This is reckoned right effort.[n.34] The present and subsequent passages, concerned with expounding the path-factors from right effort up to right knowledge, are without a counterpart in MN 117. The Tibetan version does continue by examining right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, D 4094 nyu 46a6 or Q 5595 thu 86a2, without, however, taking up right liberation or right knowledge. Its presentation of the former three also differs, as instead of bringing in the four right efforts, the four establishings of mindfulness and the four absorptions, in each case it rather lists various terms that are near synonyms to effort, mindfulness and concentration respectively; cf. also the discussion below.

"What is right mindfulness? A monk contemplates the internal body as a body ... (up to) ... feelings ... states of mind ... he contemplates dharmas as dharmas. This is reckoned right mindfulness.

"What is right concentration? A monk, secluded from sensual desire and secluded from evil and unwholesome states ... (up to) ... dwells having attained the fourth absorption. This is reckoned right concentration.

"What is right liberation? A monk [attains] liberation of the mind from sensuality ... from ill will ... and from delusion. This is reckoned right liberation.

"What is reckoned right knowledge? A monk knows that his mind has been liberated from sensuality ... from ill will ... from delusion. This is reckoned right knowledge.

"The one in training (sekha) is endowed with eight factors, the arahant, who has destroyed the influxes, is endowed with ten factors.

34.[n.35] The distinction between the path of the disciple in higher training and the arahant is also found in MN 117 at MN III 76,7, where it forms the conclusion to the exposition of the sequential build-up of the path-factors and is not followed by a listing of the respective eight or ten path-factors. The distinction between the paths of the disciple in higher training and of the arahant occurs a little later in D 4094 nyu 46b4 or Q 5595 thu 86b1, where the sequential buildup of the path-factors is first followed by indicating that in this way the noble disciple is able to eradicate the three root defilements and attain liberation; cf. above note 19. "What are the eight factors with which the one in training is endowed? The right view of one in training ... (up to) ... the right concentration of one in training. These are the eight factors with which the one in training is endowed.

"What are the ten factors with which the arahant, who has destroyed the influxes, is endowed? The right view of one beyond training ... (up to) ... the right knowledge of one beyond training. These are reckoned the ten factors with which the arahant, who has destroyed the influxes, is endowed.

35. "Why? One who has right view abandons wrong view, [whereby] the innumerable evil and unwholesome states that arise because of wrong view are also abandoned and the innumerable wholesome states that arise because of right view are developed and brought to perfection ... (up to) ... one who has right knowledge abandons wrong knowledge, [whereby] the innumerable evil and unwholesome states that arise because of wrong knowledge are also abandoned, and the innumerable wholesome states that arise because of right knowledge are developed and brought to perfection.[n.36] The listing of the ten path-factors of an arahant in MN 117 at MN III 76,7 differs in so far as here right knowledge is the ninth factor, whereas right liberation takes the tenth and last position. D 4094 nyu 47a1 or Q 5595 thu 86b6 agrees with MĀ 189 on having as its last item the right knowledge of one who is beyond training, mi slob paʼi yang dag paʼi shes pa. On the positioning of right knowledge in the Pāli discourses cf. Bucknell 1986: 6f.

36. "[Together] these are twenty wholesome types and twenty unwholesome types. Hence this is reckoned the teaching on the great forty types,[n.37] MĀ 189 at T I 736c2 actually reads 四十大法品. In the next instance of this expression at T I 736c4, however, a variant reading changes the sequence of the last two characters to 品法. Since this fits the context better, I adopt this reading for all instances of this expression. which sets rolling the wheel of Brahma and which cannot be stopped or contradicted by any recluse or brahmin, god, Māra or Brahma, or by anyone else in the world.

37. "If there is a recluse or brahmin [trying to stop or contradict] the teaching on the great forty types proclaimed by me, which sets rolling the wheel of Brahma and which cannot be stopped or contradicted by any recluse or brahmin, god, Māra or Brahma, or by anyone else in the world, then this [recluse or brahmin] will incur ten types of rebuke in accordance with the Dharma. What are the ten?

"If he censures right view and commends wrong view, then he is supporting and commending those recluses and brahmins who have wrong view. If there is a recluse or brahmin [trying to stop or contradict] the teaching on the great forty types proclaimed by me, which sets rolling the wheel of Brahma and which cannot be stopped or contradicted by any recluse or brahmin, god, Māra or Brahma, or by anyone else in the world, then this is the first type of rebuke he will incur in accordance with the Dharma.

"If he censures ... (up to) ... right knowledge and commends wrong knowledge, then he is supporting and commending those recluses and brahmins who have wrong knowledge. If there is a recluse or brahmin [trying to stop or contradict] the teaching on the great forty types proclaimed by me, which sets rolling the wheel of Brahma and which cannot be stopped or contradicted by any recluse or brahmin, god, Māra or Brahma, or by anyone else in the world, then this is the tenth type of rebuke he will incur in accordance with the Dharma.

"If there is a recluse or brahmin [trying to stop or contradict] the teaching on the great forty types proclaimed by me, which sets rolling the wheel of Brahma and which cannot be stopped or contradicted by any recluse or brahmin, god, Māra or Brahma, or by anyone else in the world, then these are the ten types of rebuke in accordance with the Dharma [that he will incur].

38. "If there are still other recluses and brahmins, who adopt [the practice] of squatting and proclaim [the practice] of squatting, who are nihilists and proclaim nihilism,[n.38] MN 117 at MN III 78,13 refers to these nihilists as okkalā vassa-bhaññā (Ce and Se read ukkalā, Be notes the variant reading vaya-bhaññā). The commentary, Ps IV 136,4, explains that Vassa and Bhañña are the proper names of two individuals who were inhabitants of the country of Okkala. The ukkalā-vassa-bhaññā as proponents of a doctrine of non-action recur in SN 22.62 at SN III 73,3 and in AN 4.30 at AN II 31,21; cf. also Kv 141,28. Bareau 1981: 3 comments that MĀ 189 does not make an "allusion to the Ukkalas", but Meisig 1987: 245 note 93 and 99 explains that the reference to "squatting" (Skt. utkuṭaka) and to what is "cut off and destroyed" (Skt. vyaya-bhinna) could be due to the translator not recognizing these as proper names and instead rendering them as activities. who deny causality, deny action and deny karma, who think that whatever is done and designated as good or evil will be cut off and destroyed then and there, even they are afraid of and are worried about censuring the teaching on the great forty types proclaimed by me, which sets rolling the wheel of Brahma and which cannot be stopped or contradicted by any recluse or brahmin, god, Māra or Brahma, or by anyone else in the world."

The Buddha spoke like this. The monks, having listened to what the Buddha said, were delighted and received it respectfully.

---

Study (1)

On surveying the variations found between the three versions of the present discourse, it is remarkable that on several occasions the discourse quotation in Śamathadeva's compendium preserved in Tibetan agrees with the Pāli version when the latter differs from the Chinese. In this way the Mūlasarvāstivāda version preserved in Tibetan shows a number of affinities with the Theravāda version in cases where what with high probability represents a Chinese rendering from the Sarvāstivāda tradition differs.

For example, the Pāli and Tibetan versions agree regarding the title "The Great Forty", against the title of the Chinese discourse as the "The Noble Path". They also agree in positioning the sequential build-up of the path-factors after these factors have received a detailed exposition, whereas the Chinese version translated above adopts the opposite sequence. The Pāli and Tibetan versions again concord that the existence of spontaneously arisen beings is an aspect of right or wrong view, whereas this is absent from the corresponding Chinese description.

This goes to show that, whatever may be the final word on the relationship between the Mūlasarvāstivāda and the Sarvāstivāda traditions, the Tibetan and Chinese versions of the present discourse do stem from two to some degree independent lines of transmission. For them to nevertheless agree in not having any exposition of the supramundane path-factors provides strong evidence against the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta.

As already mentioned at the outset of the present chapter, the treatment of the supramundane path-factors does not seem to be necessary from the viewpoint of the central topic of the discourse, the same treatment shows distinct Abhidharmic characteristics and vocabulary, and it is absent from both parallels. This makes it highly probable that the description of the supramundane path-factors is a later addition to the Pāli discourse.

Such a conclusion does not entail a dismissal of the reliability of the Pāli version as a whole, as in other respects the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta appears to be closer to what probably was the original exposition than its Chinese and Tibetan counterparts. This can be seen in the part of the Chinese parallel translated above that sets in after the definition of right and wrong livelihood (after paragraph 33 in the translation above). Up to this point, in all versions right concentration has been defined as one-pointedness of the mind endowed with the other seven path-factors, while right effort and right mindfulness have been explained to be the effort and the mindfulness required for establishing the right manifestations of the other path-factors. Hence it would be redundant to expound these path-factors once more. Yet, this is precisely what happens in the Chinese and Tibetan versions.

In the Chinese discourse, this takes place by way of the standard definitions of right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, which describe the four right efforts, the four establishings of mindfulness and the four absorptions. The Chinese account then continues by also defining right liberation and right knowledge.

The last two are not taken up in the Tibetan account at all, which also differs in the way it defines right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. Instead of the standard definitions found in the Chinese discourse, the Tibetan version describes these three path factors with the help of a series of near synonyms.[n.39] D 4094 nyu 46a5 or Q 5595 thu 86a2. The passage in question reads:

"What is right effort? Endeavouring with aspiration, not procrastinating, surpassing exertion, abandoning, endeavouring, non discouragement, not becoming easily satisfied – this is reckoned right effort.

"What is right mindfulness? Whatever mindfulness, recollection, various instances of mindfulness, non-forgetful mindfulness, absence of forgetfulness, non-delusion, being endowed with non-deluded qualities, sustained noting (abhilapanatā) of the mind[n.40] D 4094 nyu 46a7 or Q 5595 thu 86a4: sems kyi mngon par brjod pa; where mngon par brjod pa would correspond to abhilapanatā; cf. Edgerton 1953/ 1998: 56 s.v. abhilapanatā and entry no. 2795 in the Mahāvyutpatti, Sakaki 1926: 201. On the significance of abhilapanatā cf. also the discussion in Cox 1992/1993: 79–82 and Gethin 1992: 39f. – this is reckoned right mindfulness.

"What is right concentration? Whatever calm dwelling of the mind, complete still abiding, manifest still abiding, essential still abiding, non-distraction, right collectedness, tranquillity and concentration, one-pointedness of the mind – this is reckoned right concentration."

This rather substantial difference makes it highly probable that in this case additions have taken place in the Chinese and Tibetan versions. In fact, whereas in regard to the earlier path-factors all versions invariably conclude each case by highlighting the cooperative activity of right view, right effort and right mindfulness, such an indication is absent from their exposition of the remaining three path-factors. The Chinese and Tibetan versions also do not provide a contrast to wrong manifestations of these pathfactors. This makes it safe to assume that the additional treatment of these path-factors was added during the process of oral transmission.[n.41] Cf. also Meisig 1987: 230. In fact, whereas the earlier part of MĀ 189 at T I 735c3 is concerned with a definition of "noble right concentration", 聖正定, just as its counterpart MN 117 at MN III 71,16: ariyo sammāsamādhi, the present section in MĀ 189 at T I 736b16 speaks merely of "right concentration", 正定, a change of terminology that supports the impression that this part of the discourse may be a later expansion or addition. The Tibetan version, however, speaks from the outset only of "right concentration", without further qualifying it as "noble"; cf. D 4094 nyu 44a2 or Q 5595 thu 83b1: yang dag paʼi ting nge ʼdzin.

In sum, it seems that the treatment of the path in the present discourse has been expanded in different ways in each of the three versions during the prolonged period of transmission, as follows:

• Addition of the standard expositions of the path-factors right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right liberation and right knowledge in the case of the Chinese version.
• Addition of expositions of the path-factors right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration by listing synonyms in the case of the Tibetan version.
• Division of the right path-factors into two types and addition of a supramundane path-factor to the descriptions of right view, right intention, right speech, right action and right livelihood in the case of the Pāli version.

While the Chinese version's apparent addition of expositions of path-factors like right effort, right mindfulness or right concentration can be seen to draw on standard descriptions of the pathfactors found elsewhere in the discourses, with the Tibetan version's exposition of the same path-factors already a slightly more Abhidharmic nuance comes to the fore, as each of these pathfactors is glossed with the help of a long series of near synonyms. Although listings of near synonyms is a feature of oral transmission widely attested to in the early discourses,[n.42] Cf., e.g., von Simson 1965: 32f, 41–55, von Hinüber 1994 and Allon 1997: 191–272. when taken to such lengths it becomes more characteristic of Abhidharma literature.[n.43] Cf. also Meisig 1987: 227. The Tibetan treatment is at the same time an instance of the above-mentioned tendency to describe path-factors not in terms of what they perform, but in terms of what is performing them, that is, the state of mind of one who develops them.[n.44] Another example of the same pattern can be found in the Madhyama-āgama parallel to the Saccavibhaṅga-sutta, where the Pāli version has the standard description of the path-factors in terms of what they perform, MN 141 at MN III 251,12, whereas MĀ 31 at T I 469a15 describes which set of mental qualities fulfils the function of a particular path-factor at the time of attending to dukkha, to its arising, to its cessation and to the path; a mode of presentation found similarly in another parallel preserved as an individual translation, T 32 at T I 816a17 (a parallel in the Ekottarika-āgama just lists the path-factors without explaining them; cf. EĀ 27.1 at T II 643b23, translated in Anālayo 2006: 148).

With the Pāli version, then, this tendency towards Abhidharma influence manifests by integrating an exposition whose philosophical and philological aspects clearly reflect Abhidharmic thought.

Notably, the Theravāda tradition does not stand alone in having such a distinction between mundane and supramundane pathfactors in its discourse collections. A somewhat similar exposition can be found twice in the Saṃyukta-āgama, a collection probably representing the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition.[n.45] Cf., e.g., Lü 1963: 242, Waldschmidt 1980: 136, Mayeda 1985: 99, Enomoto 1986: 23, Schmithausen 1987: 306, Choong 2000: 6 note 18, Hiraoka 2000, Harrison 2002: 1, Oberlies 2003: 64, Bucknell 2006: 685 and Glass 2010. In what follows, I first translate the two discourses from the Saṃyukta-āgama, followed by briefly examining their significance in relation to the present topic.

---

Translation (2)

[Discourse on Right and Wrong][n.46] Adopting the title suggested in Akanuma 1929/1990: 75. Thus have I heard:[n.47] The translated text is SĀ 785 at T II 203a19 to 204a15; a small section of a parallel to SĀ 785 has been preserved in Uighur, cf. fragment G a6–7 in Kudara 1983: 302. At one time the Buddha was dwelling at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Park. At that time the Blessed One told the monks ... (as said above, with these differences):[n.48] This remark refers to the preceding discourse, SĀ 784 at T II 203a1, according to which the Buddha delivered a teaching to the monks that begins by highlighting the basic contrast between what is "wrong" (邪) and what is "right" (正), followed by a detailed exposition of what is right by way of describing the eight factors of the noble eightfold path. This description corresponds to what the present discourse presents under the heading of being "worldly" and "with influxes", etc.

"What is right view? Right view is of two types: There is right view that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right view that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right view that is [mundane], with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination? If one has the view that there is [efficacy] in giving, there is [efficacy] in what is spoken ... (up to)[n.49] The full description of right view, to be supplemented from SĀ 784 at T II 203a5, would be: "there is [efficacy] in giving, there is [efficacy] in what is spoken, there is [efficacy] in offerings, there is wholesome conduct, there is evil conduct, there is result of wholesome and evil conduct, there is this world, there is another world, there is [an obligation towards one's] father and mother, there are [spontaneously] arisen beings, there are arahants who have well attained and have progressed well, who by their own knowledge fully dwell having realized this world and the other world, knowing by themselves that 'for me birth has been extinguished, the holy life has been established, what had to be done has been done, there will be no experiencing of a further existence'". My rendering of the slightly ambivalent expression 有眾生生 at T II 203a7, literally "there are living beings being born", as "there are [spontaneously] arisen beings", is inspired by the Tibetan parallel, D 4094 ju 206a5 or Q 5595 tu 235a7, which reads: sems can rdzus te byung ba yod do. ... the knowledge that there are arahants in this world who will not experience a further existence – this is called right view in this world that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"What is right view that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation ... and to the path as path, [with a mind that] in the absence of influxes gives attention that is conjoined to the Dharma [by way of] investigation, discrimination, inquiry, realization, wisdom, awakening and contemplative examination – this is called right view that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right intention? Right intention is of two types: There is right intention that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right intention that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right intention that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination? This is reckoned to be right intention [by way of] thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, thoughts of non-harming – this is called right intention that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"What is right intention that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation ... and to the path as path, [with a mind that] in the absence of influxes gives attention that is conjoined to mental states [by way of] discrimination, self-determination, understanding, repeated inclination and resolution – this is called right intention that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right speech? Right speech is of two types: There is right speech that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right speech that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

What is right speech that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination? This is reckoned to be right speech [by way of] abstaining from false speech, from divisive speech, from harsh speech and from frivolous speech – this is called right speech that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"What is right speech that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation ... and to the path as path, [having] gotten rid of desire [related to] wrong livelihood,[n.50] Here and below I adopt the variant 貪 instead of 念. [with a mind that] in the absence of influxes abstains from the four evil verbal activities and from any other evil verbal activities, removes them and detaches from them, he strongly guards himself against them and keeps himself back so as to not transgress, does not go beyond the proper time and bewares of not overstepping bounds – this is called right speech that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right action? Right action is of two types: There is right action that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right action that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right action that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination? This is reckoned to be abstention from killing, from stealing and from sexual misconduct – this is called right action that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"What is right action that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation ... and to the path as path, [having] gotten rid of desire [related to] wrong livelihood, with a mind that in the absence of influxes does not delight in or attach to the three evil bodily activities or to any other of the number of evil bodily activities, he strongly guards himself against them and keeps himself back so as to not transgress, does not go beyond the proper time and bewares of not overstepping bounds – this is called right action that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right livelihood? Right livelihood is of two types: There is right livelihood that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right livelihood that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

What is right livelihood that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination? This is reckoned to be seeking in accordance with the Dharma for robes and food, for bedding and for medication in conformity with one's disease, not [seeking for these] against the Dharma – this is called right livelihood that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"What is right livelihood that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation... and to the path as path, [with a mind that] in the absence of influxes does not delight in or attach to any wrong livelihood, he strongly guards himself against it and keeps himself back so as to not transgress, does not go beyond the proper time and bewares of not overstepping bounds – this is called right livelihood that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right effort? Right effort is of two types: There is right effort that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right effort that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right effort that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination? This is reckoned to be energetic desire, putting forth surpassing exertion, being firmly established in it, being able to arouse it, with mental states that take hold of energy constantly, without remission – this is called right effort that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"What is right effort that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that [rightly] eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation ... and to the path as path, [with a mind that] in the absence of influxes has recollective mindfulness conjoined to mental states [by way of] energetic desire and effort, putting forth surpassing diligence, being established in it firmly, able to arouse energy, with mental states that take hold of [energy] constantly, without remission – this is called right effort that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that [rightly] eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right mindfulness? Right mindfulness is of two types: There is right mindfulness that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right mindfulness that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right mindfulness that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination? This is mindfulness that is in conformity with being mindful, with repeated mindfulness, with recollective mindfulness that is without forgetfulness,[n.51] Adopting the variant 忘 instead of 妄. that is not vain – this is called right mindfulness that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"What is right mindfulness that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, [that rightly eradicates dukkha] and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation ... and to the path as path, [with a mind that] in the absence of influxes gives attention that is conjoined to that [type of] mindfulness that is in conformity with being mindful, with repeated mindfulness, with recollective mindfulness that is without forgetfulness, that is not vain – this is called right mindfulness that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, [that rightly eradicates dukkha] and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right concentration? Right concentration is of two types: There is right concentration that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right concentration that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right concentration that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination? This is [when] the mind is settled without disturbance, imperturbable, having taken hold of quietude and tranquillity, being concentrated and with a unified mind – this is called right concentration that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"What is right concentration that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation... and to the path as path, [with a mind that] in the absence of influxes gives attention that is conjoined to mental states that are settled without disturbance, without loss, having taken hold of tranquillity, being concentrated and with a unified mind – this is called right concentration that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha."

When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, the monks, having listened to what the Buddha said, were delighted and received it respectfully.

[Discourse to Jānussoṇi][n.52] Adopting the title suggested in Akanuma 1929/1990: 75. Thus have I heard.[n.53] The translated discourse is SĀ 789 at T II 204c14 to 205a2. At one time, the Buddha was dwelling at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Park. At that time, the brahmin Jānussoṇi approached the Buddha. Having paid respect with his head at the Buddha's feet, exchanged friendly greetings with the Blessed One and stepped back to sit to one side, he asked the Buddha: "Gotama, regarding the so-called right view, what is such right view?"

The Buddha told the brahmin: "Right view is of two types: There is right view that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, that turns towards [rebirth in] a good destination; and there is right view that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha.

"What is right view that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination? If one has the view that there is [efficacy] in giving, there is [efficacy] in what is spoken, there is [efficacy] in offerings ... (up to)[n.54] Here, too, the full description of right view should be supplemented from SĀ 784 at T II 203a5; cf. above note 49. ... [there are arahants who] know by themselves that there will be no experiencing of further existence – brahmin, this is called right view that is mundane, with influxes, with grasping, [that turns] towards [rebirth in] a good destination.

"Brahmin, what is right view that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha? This is reckoned to be [when] a noble disciple gives attention to dukkha as dukkha, gives attention to its arising ... to its cessation... and to the path as path, [with a mind that] in the absence of influxes gives attention that is conjoined to the Dharma [by way of] investigation, discrimination, inquiry, realization, skilful and intelligent wisdom and contemplative examination – this is called right view that is noble, supramundane, without influxes, without grasping, that rightly eradicates dukkha and turns towards the transcendence of dukkha."

When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, the brahmin Jānussoṇi, having listened to what the Buddha said, was delighted. Being delighted he got up from his seat and left.

(As for right view, so too for right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration – for each a discourse should be spoken as above).[n.55] Indications of this type, as in the present instance in SĀ 789 at T II 205a1, are a recurrent feature of the Saṃyukta-āgama.

---

Study (2)

The presentation in the Saṃyukta-āgama discourses translated above distinguishes the eight path-factors into worldly and supramundane manifestations. The description of the first five supramundane path-factors in the Saṃyukta-āgama is similar to the corresponding sections in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta. Unlike the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta, the Saṃyukta-āgama discourses only take up right path-factors in their worldly and supramundane manifestations, without covering wrong manifestations of the path-factors. The Saṃyukta-āgama discourses also do not take up the role of right view, right effort and right mindfulness in relation to each path-factor. These differences are of such magnitude as to make it safe to conclude that these Saṃyukta-āgama discourses are not parallels to the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta.

The Buddha's interlocutor in the second of the two above translated Saṃyukta-āgama discourses, the brahmin Jānussoṇi, also features as the audience to a discourse on the twenty-two faculties (indriya) preserved in Śamathadeva's compendium of discourse quotations in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.[n.56] D 4094 ju 50b8 or Q 5595 tu 47a2. No version of this discourse is known from the canonical collections, though quotations from it occur in later works. Regarding the contents of its presentation, in the Pāli canon a listing of twenty-two faculties is not found in the discourses, but only in the Abhidharma.[n.57] Thus, e.g., Vibh 122,1 begins its abhidhammabhājaniya on the faculties by listing the twenty-two, followed by explaining them one by one. Notably, this topic does not have a corresponding suttantabhājaniya, perhaps reflecting the fact that, whereas the assembling of these diverse faculties under a single heading would be the result of Abhidharmic systematization, the faculties that make up this list are already found in separate discourses; cf. also Vibh-a 125,21. That is, with the whole set being covered in the abhidhammabhājaniya, there would have been no material for compiling a suttantabhājaniya. For further occurrences of the whole set in other works cf. Skilling 2012.

In his detailed study of this discourse, Skilling (2012: 429) observes that this "text might be a product of the interaction of Sūtra and Abhidharma – the tendencies of the latter set in the format of the former ... Can we envisage a stage when the Abhidharma as a self-conscious enterprise had not yet arisen or gained canonical status? At this stage – the beginnings of Abhidharmic systematization – the natural format for reformulated material was that of the sūtra, and the natural place was the Sūtrapiṭaka – where else to place it?"

In a similar vein, Thomas (1933/2004: 160) comments that "in the sense of a method ... Abhidhamma is no doubt much older than the existing works of that name", as several discourses "seem to imply that the method was already in existence when those suttas were revised".

According to Hirakawa (1993/1998: 127),"even before the contents of the Sūtra-piṭaka had been finalized, the Buddha's disciples were analyzing his teachings with methods similar to those employed later in [the] abhidharma. These early analyses were often incorporated into [the] sūtras. After the Sūtra-piṭaka had been established and its contents determined, abhidharma investigations were considered to be a separate branch of literature ... [and] were later compiled into a collection called the Abhidharma-piṭaka."

Similar considerations would apply to the present instance, in that the explanations given to Jānussoṇi on right view, etc., from a two-fold viewpoint seem to testify to this very tendency of Abhidharmic thought, expressed in the format of a set of short discourses, which then recur as an integrated discourse given to the monks in the same Saṃyukta-āgama.

It is noteworthy that these Saṃyukta-āgama discourses with high probability stem from the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition, like the Tibetan parallel to the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta, which was translated several centuries after the Saṃyukta-āgama was rendered into Chinese.[n.58] While the translation of the Saṃyukta-āgama began in 435, translation activities into Tibetan only began some four centuries later. In the case of Śamathadeva's work, in the absence of any precise information Skilling 2005: 699 suggests the eleventh century to be a possible date for the translation, the work itself having been compiled "at any time between the 5th century and the as yet unknown date of its Tibetan translation"; cf. also Mejor 1991: 64, who explains that "it seems probable that the Indian translator, Jayaśrī," of Śamathadeva's work "is the same as the Kashmirian logician Jayaśrī who lived in the second half of the eleventh century". This further strengthens the testimony of the Tibetan parallel to the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta, in that a conscious removal of a supramundane exposition of the path-factors from the Tibetan version can safely be excluded, given that a similar mode of presentation is found in these two Saṃyukta-āgama discourses. In fact, a version of one of these Saṃyukta-āgama discourses is also found in Śamathadeva's compendium of discourse quotations in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and this version has the exposition of supramundane factors.[n.59] D 4094 ju 205b6 to 209a7 or Q 5595 tu 234b8 to 238b8, counterpart to SĀ 785, with the distinction and subsequent exposition of the two types of right view beginning at D 4094 ju 206a2 or Q 5595 tu 235a4.

The occurrence of an exposition of the supramundane pathfactors in the Saṃyukta-āgama shows that the beginning stages of Abhidharmic thought left their traces in the discourse collections of the Theravāda tradition as well as of the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition. These instances thus offer us an intriguing glimpse at the beginnings of Abhidharmic thought, prior to the formation of canonical Abhidharma texts in their own right.

The concern in the Saṃyukta-āgama discourses and in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta with expounding the path-factors from a supramundane viewpoint shows how early Abhidharmic analysis has a root in meditation practice and experience, since the rationale behind these presentations would be to throw additional light on what constitutes the essence of the Buddha's teaching: the culmination of the path in the experience of awakening.