Nakula-pitu Sutta
(The Discourse to Nakula-pitu — with intensive Pāli explanations) Saṁyutta Nikāya — Khandha-saṁyutta
Thus have I heard.
At one time, the Blessed One was dwelling at Bhesakaḷā-vana, the woodland where the yakkhinī Bhesakaḷā resided, a sanctuary for deer near Sumsumāragira in the Bhagga country.
Then the householder Nakula-pitu approached the Blessed One. After paying homage, he sat to one side and said:
“Bhante, I am old, worn out, advanced in years. This body is agitated and frail, constantly afflicted with illness. And, Bhante, I seldom get to see the Blessed One and the bhikkhus who gladden the mind.
May the Blessed One please instruct me with a Dhamma teaching for my long-term welfare and happiness.”
The Blessed One said:
“Householder, it is indeed so.
This body is unstable, like a bubble of an eggshell, held together only by skin. One who must maintain (parihāra — care for, look after) such a body could not reasonably expect to be free from illness even for a moment.
Therefore, householder, you should train thus:
‘Though my body is sick, let not my mind be sick.’
This is how you should train.”
Then the householder Nakula-pitu rejoiced in the Blessed One’s words. Rising from his seat, he paid homage, circumambulated the Blessed One, and went to see Venerable Sāriputta. After paying homage, he sat to one side.
Venerable Sāriputta said:
“Householder, your faculties appear serene and your complexion is pure and bright. Did you receive a Dhamma teaching directly from the Blessed One today?”
Nakula-pitu replied:
“Yes, Venerable Sir. Today the Blessed One bathed me in nectar-like Dhamma through a Dhamma discourse.”
Venerable Sāriputta asked:
“In what manner did the Blessed One bathe you in nectar-like Dhamma?”
Nakula-pitu recounted the entire discourse he had heard.
Venerable Sāriputta’s Explanation
Venerable Sāriputta said:
“Householder, did you not think to ask the Blessed One:
‘For what reason is a person called one with an agitated body and an agitated mind?
And for what reason is a person whose body is agitated yet whose mind is not agitated?’”
Nakula-pitu said:
“Venerable Sir, I came even from afar to learn the meaning of that statement from you. Please let its meaning become clear.”
Venerable Sāriputta said:
“Then listen carefully.”
Why the Ordinary Person Has Both an Agitated Body and an Agitated Mind
A worldling (puthujjana — an untrained ordinary person), who has heard but not understood, who has not seen the noble ones (ariyā), who is unskilled in the Dhamma of the noble ones, who has not been instructed in the noble Dhamma; who has not seen the true persons (sappurisa), nor been instructed in their Dhamma — such a person:
- regards form (rūpa — physical form, the body) as self,
- regards self as possessing form,
- regards form as in self,
- regards self as in form.
He becomes established in the view: “I am form; form is mine.”
But when form (rūpa) inevitably changes (vipariṇāma), sorrow (soka), lamentation (parideva), pain (dukkha), grief (domanassa), and despair (upāyāsa) arise.
Likewise:
- feeling (vedanā — affective sensation)
- perception (saññā — recognition, marking)
- formations (saṅkhārā — conditioned activities, mental concocting, all built phenomena)
- consciousness (viññāṇa — knowing of an object through a sense-base)
He regards each of the five aggregates (pañcakkhandhā) in the four distorted ways of self:
as self, as “I have this,” as in self, as self in it.
And whatever he clings to must alter. Therefore sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair arise.
Thus a person has both an agitated body and an agitated mind.
Why the Noble Disciple Has an Agitated Body but an Unagitated Mind
A noble disciple (ariyasāvaka), who has heard the Dhamma, seen the noble ones, is skilled in their Dhamma, and has been well instructed:
- does not regard form (rūpa) as self,
- does not regard self as possessing form,
- does not regard form as in self,
- does not regard self as in form.
He is not established in the view: “I am form; form is mine.”
Thus even when form changes, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair do not arise.
Likewise for:
- feeling (vedanā)
- perception (saññā)
- formations (saṅkhārā)
- consciousness (viññāṇa)
Since he does not cling to any of them as self, their change does not produce agitation of mind.
Therefore:
Even though his body is agitated, his mind is not agitated.
Nakula-pitu rejoiced in Venerable Sāriputta’s words.
Sakkāya-diṭṭhi Sutta
(The Discourse on the Origin of Identity-View — sakkāya-diṭṭhi)
At Sāvatthī, the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus:
“Bhikkhus, when what exists, because of what, depending on what, does identity-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi — the view that the five aggregates are ‘I’ or ‘mine’) arise?”
The bhikkhus replied:
“Bhante, our Dhamma depends on the Blessed One as its root…”
The Blessed One answered:
“Bhikkhus, when form (rūpa) exists, because of form, depending on form, identity-view arises.
When feeling (vedanā) exists…
When perception (saññā) exists…
When formations (saṅkhārā) exist…
When consciousness (viññāṇa) exists, because of consciousness, depending on consciousness, identity-view arises.”
Impermanence and the Impossibility of Identity-View
The Blessed One asked:
“Bhikkhus, is form (rūpa) permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, Bhante.”
“And what is impermanent — is it suffering or happiness?”
“Suffering, Bhante.”
“And what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change — would it be fitting to regard that as ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“No, Bhante.”
Likewise for:
- feeling (vedanā)
- perception (saññā)
- formations (saṅkhārā)
- consciousness (viññāṇa)
All are impermanent, suffering, and subject to change.
Therefore identity-view cannot be rightly established upon them.
A noble disciple, having seen this with wisdom, abandons identity-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi). No further action is required; the work is done.
Thus ends the Sakkāya-diṭṭhi Sutta.