...

...

Seyyathāpi, gahapati, kukkuro jighacchādubbalyapareto goghātakasūnaṃ paccupaṭṭhito assa. Tamenaṃ dakkho goghātako vā goghātakantevāsī vā aṭṭhikaṅkalaṃ sunikkantaṃ nikkantaṃ nimmaṃsaṃ lohitamakkhitaṃ upasumbheyya. Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, gahapati, api nu kho so kukkuro amuṃ aṭṭhikaṅkalaṃ sunikkantaṃ nikkantaṃ nimmaṃsaṃ lohitamakkhitaṃ palehanto jighacchādubbalyaṃ paṭivineyyā ti?

Suppose a dog, overcome with weakness & hunger, were to come across a slaughterhouse, and there a dexterous butcher or butcher's apprentice were to fling him a chain of bones, thoroughly scraped, without any flesh, smeared with blood. What do you think: Would the dog, gnawing on that chain of bones, thoroughly scraped, without any flesh, smeared with blood, appease its weakness & hunger?

– No hetaṃ, bhante.

– Taṃ kissa hetu?

– Aduñhi, bhante, aṭṭhikaṅkalaṃ sunikkantaṃ nikkantaṃ nimmaṃsaṃ lohitamakkhitaṃ. Yāvadeva pana so kukkuro kilamathassa vighātassa bhāgī assāti.

– No, lord.

– And why is that?

– Because the chain of bones is thoroughly scraped, without any flesh, & smeared with blood. The dog would get nothing but its share of weariness & vexation.

– Evameva kho, gahapati, ariya·sāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘aṭṭhikaṅkal·ūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahu·dukkhā bahūpāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathā·bhūtaṃ samma·p·paññāya disvā yāyaṃ upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā, yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā ekatta·sitā yattha sabbaso lok·āmis·ūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti tam·ev·ūpekkhaṃ bhāveti.

– In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a chain of bones, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace.

Seyyathāpi, gahapati, gijjho vā kaṅko vā kulalo vā maṃsapesiṃ ādāya uḍḍīyeyya. Tamenaṃ gijjhāpi kaṅkāpi kulalāpi anupatitvā anupatitvā vitaccheyyuṃ virājeyyuṃ. Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, gahapati, sace so gijjho vā kaṅko vā kulalo vā taṃ maṃsapesiṃ na khippameva paṭinissajjeyya, so tatonidānaṃ maraṇaṃ vā nigaccheyya maraṇamattaṃ vā dukkha nti?

Now suppose a vulture, a kite, or a hawk, seizing a lump of flesh, were to take off, and other vultures, kites, or hawks, following right after it, were to tear at it with their beaks & pull at it with their claws. What do you think: If that vulture, kite, or hawk were not quickly to drop that lump of flesh, would it meet with death from that cause, or with death-like pain?

– Evaṃ, bhante.

– Evameva kho, gahapati, ariya·sāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘maṃsapes·ūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahu·dukkhā bahu·pāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathā·bhūtaṃ samma·p·paññāya disvā yāyaṃ upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā ekatta·sitā yattha sabbaso lok·āmis·ūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti tam·ev·ūpekkhaṃ bhāveti.

– Yes, lord.

– In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a lump of flesh, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace.

Seyyathāpi, gahapati, puriso ādittaṃ tiṇukkaṃ ādāya paṭivātaṃ gaccheyya. Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, gahapati, sace so puriso taṃ ādittaṃ tiṇukkaṃ na khippameva paṭinissajjeyya tassa sā ādittā tiṇukkā hatthaṃ vā daheyya bāhuṃ vā daheyya aññataraṃ vā aññataraṃ vā aṅgapaccaṅgaṃ daheyya, so tatonidānaṃ maraṇaṃ vā nigaccheyya maraṇamattaṃ vā dukkha nti?

Now suppose a man were to come against the wind, carrying a burning grass torch. What do you think: If he were not quickly to drop that grass torch, would he burn his hand or his arm or some other part of his body, so that he would meet with death from that cause, or with death-like pain?

– Evaṃ, bhante.

– Evameva kho, gahapati, ariya·sāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘tiṇukk·ūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahu·dukkhā bahu·pāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathā·bhūtaṃ samma·p·paññāya disvā yāyaṃ upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā ekatta·sitā yattha sabbaso lok·āmis·ūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti tam·ev·ūpekkhaṃ bhāveti.

– Yes, lord.

– In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a grass torch, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace.

Seyyathāpi, gahapati, aṅgārakāsu sādhikaporisā, pūrā aṅgārānaṃ vītaccikānaṃ vītadhūmānaṃ. Atha puriso āgaccheyya jīvitukāmo amaritu·kāmo sukha·kāmo dukkha·p·paṭikkūlo. Tamenaṃ dve balavanto purisā nānābāhāsu gahetvā aṅgārakāsuṃ upakaḍḍheyyuṃ. Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, gahapati, api nu so puriso iticiticeva kāyaṃ sannāmeyyā ti?

Now suppose there were a pit of glowing embers, deeper than a man's height, full of embers that were neither flaming nor smoking, and a man were to come along, loving life, hating death, loving pleasure, abhorring pain, and two strong men, grabbing him with their arms, were to drag him to the pit of embers. What do you think: Wouldn't the man twist his body this way & that?

– Evaṃ, bhante.

– Taṃ kissa hetu?

– Viditañhi, bhante, tassa purisassa imañcāhaṃ aṅgārakāsuṃ papatissāmi, tatonidānaṃ maraṇaṃ vā nigacchissāmi maraṇamattaṃ vā dukkhanti.

– Yes, lord.

– And why is that?

– Because he would realize, 'If I fall into this pit of glowing embers, I will meet with death from that cause, or with death-like pain.'

– Evameva kho, gahapati, ariya·sāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘aṅgārakās·ūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahu·dukkhā bahu·pāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathā·bhūtaṃ samma·p·paññāya disvā yāyaṃ upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā ekatta·sitā yattha sabbaso lok·āmis·ūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti tam·ev·ūpekkhaṃ bhāveti.

– In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a pit of glowing embers, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace.

Seyyathāpi, gahapati, puriso supinakaṃ passeyya ārāmarāmaṇeyyakaṃ vanarāmaṇeyyakaṃ bhūmirāmaṇeyyakaṃ pokkharaṇirāmaṇeyyakaṃ. So paṭibuddho na kiñci passeyya. Evameva kho, gahapati, ariya·sāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘supinak·ūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahu·dukkhā bahu·pāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathā·bhūtaṃ samma·p·paññāya disvā yāyaṃ upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā ekatta·sitā yattha sabbaso lok·āmis·ūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti tam·ev·ūpekkhaṃ bhāveti.

Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace.

Seyyathāpi, gahapati, puriso yācitakaṃ bhogaṃ yācitvā yānaṃ vā poroseyyaṃ pavaramaṇikuṇḍalaṃ. So tehi yācitakehi bhogehi purakkhato parivuto antarāpaṇaṃ paṭipajjeyya. Tamenaṃ jano disvā evaṃ vadeyya – ‘bhogī vata, bho, puriso, evaṃ kira bhogino bhogāni bhuñjantī’ti. Tamenaṃ sāmikā yattha yattheva passeyyuṃ tattha tattheva sāni hareyyuṃ. Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, gahapati, alaṃ nu kho tassa purisassa aññathattāyā ti?

Now suppose a man having borrowed some goods, a manly carriage, fine jewels, & ear ornaments, were to go into the market preceded & surrounded by his borrowed goods, and people seeing him would say, 'How wealthy this man is, for this is how the wealthy enjoy their possessions,' but the actual owners, wherever they might see him, would strip him then & there of what is theirs. What do you think: Should the man rightly be upset?

– Evaṃ, bhante.

– Taṃ kissa hetu?

– Sāmino hi, bhante, sāni harantī ti.

– No, lord.

– And why is that?

– The owners are stripping him of what is theirs.

– Evameva kho, gahapati, ariya·sāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘yācitak·ūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahu·dukkhā bahu·pāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathā·bhūtaṃ samma·p·paññāya disvā yāyaṃ upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā ekatta·sitā yattha sabbaso lok·āmis·ūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti tam·ev·ūpekkhaṃ bhāveti.

– In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to borrowed goods, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace.

Seyyathāpi, gahapati, gāmassa vā nigamassa vā avidūre tibbo vanasaṇḍo. Tatrassa rukkho sampannaphalo ca upapannaphalo ca, na cassu kānici phalāni bhūmiyaṃ patitāni. Atha puriso āgaccheyya phalatthiko phalagavesī phalapariyesanaṃ caramāno. So taṃ vanasaṇḍaṃ ajjhogāhetvā taṃ rukkhaṃ passeyya sampannaphalañca upapannaphalañca. Tassa evamassa: ‘ayaṃ kho rukkho sampannaphalo ca upapannaphalo ca, natthi ca kānici phalāni bhūmiyaṃ patitāni, jānāmi kho panāhaṃ rukkhaṃ ārohituṃ. Yaṃnūnāhaṃ imaṃ rukkhaṃ ārohitvā yāvadatthañca khādeyyaṃ ucchaṅgañca pūreyya’nti? So taṃ rukkhaṃ ārohitvā yāvadatthañca khādeyya ucchaṅgañca pūreyya.

Now suppose that, not far from a village or town, there were a dense forest grove, and there in the grove was a tree with delicious fruit, abundant fruit, but with no fruit fallen to the ground. A man would come along, desiring fruit, looking for fruit, searching for fruit. Plunging into the forest grove, he would see the tree with delicious fruit, abundant fruit, but with no fruit fallen to the ground. And the thought would occur to him: 'This is a tree with delicious fruit, abundant fruit, and there is no fruit fallen to the ground, but I know how to climb a tree. Why don't I climb the tree, eat what I like, and fill my clothes with the fruit?' So, having climbed the tree, he would eat what he liked and fill his clothes with the fruit.

Atha dutiyo puriso āgaccheyya phalatthiko phalagavesī phalapariyesanaṃ caramāno tiṇhaṃ kuṭhāriṃ ādāya. So taṃ vanasaṇḍaṃ ajjhogāhetvā taṃ rukkhaṃ passeyya sampannaphalañca upapannaphalañca. Tassa evamassa: ‘ayaṃ kho rukkho sampannaphalo ca upapannaphalo ca, natthi ca kānici phalāni bhūmiyaṃ patitāni. Na kho panāhaṃ jānāmi rukkhaṃ ārohituṃ. Yaṃnūnāhaṃ imaṃ rukkhaṃ mūlato chetvā yāvadatthañca khādeyyaṃ ucchaṅgañca pūreyya’nti. So taṃ rukkhaṃ mūlatova chindeyya.

Then a second man would come along, desiring fruit, looking for fruit, searching for fruit and carrying a sharp ax. Plunging into the forest grove, he would see the tree with delicious fruit, abundant fruit, but with no fruit fallen to the ground. And the thought would occur to him, 'This is a tree with delicious fruit, abundant fruit, and there is no fruit fallen to the ground, and I don't know how to climb a tree. Why don't I chop down this tree at the root, eat what I like, and fill my clothes with the fruit?' So he would chop the tree at the root.

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, gahapati, amuko yo so puriso paṭhamaṃ rukkhaṃ ārūḷho sace so na khippameva oroheyya tassa so rukkho papatanto hatthaṃ vā bhañjeyya pādaṃ vā bhañjeyya aññataraṃ vā aññataraṃ vā aṅgapaccaṅgaṃ bhañjeyya, so tatonidānaṃ maraṇaṃ vā nigaccheyya maraṇamattaṃ vā dukkhanti?

What do you think: If the first man who climbed the tree didn't quickly come down, wouldn't the falling tree crush his hand or foot or some other part of his body, so that he would meet with death from that cause, or with death-like pain?

– Evaṃ, bhante.

– Evameva kho, gahapati, ariya·sāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘rukkhaphal·ūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahu·dukkhā bahu·pāyāsā, ādīnavo ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathā·bhūtaṃ samma·p·paññāya disvā yāyaṃ upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā ekatta·sitā yattha sabbaso lok·āmis·ūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti tam·ev·ūpekkhaṃ bhāveti.

– Yes, lord.

– In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to the fruits of a tree, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is present, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace.

...

...