True DhammaLibrary · Community
SN 12.12PTS SN 2.123 min read

Phagguna of the Top-Knot

Moḷiyaphaggunasutta

Venerable Moḷiyaphagguna asks who eats the consciousness food. The Buddha says the question is improper, as it assumes a self as agent. Rather, all the factors of dependent origination are simply natural conditions and have nothing to do with a “self”.

Translated by Bhikkhu Sujato · Pāli: Mahāsaṅgīti Tipiṭaka · Public domain (CC0) via SuttaCentral

  • 0.1Saṁyutta Nikāya 12.12Linked Discourses 12.12
  • 0.22. Āhāravagga2. Fuel

0.3MoḷiyaphaggunasuttaPhagguna of the Top-Knot

1.1PTS 2.13Sāvatthiyaṁ viharati.At Sāvatthī.1

1.2“Cattārome, bhikkhave, āhārā bhūtānaṁ vā sattānaṁ ṭhitiyā sambhavesīnaṁ vā anuggahāya.“Mendicants, these four fuels maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those about to be born.1.3Katame cattāro?What four?1.4Kabaḷīkāro āhāro oḷāriko vā sukhumo vā, phasso dutiyo, manosañcetanā tatiyā, viññāṇaṁ catutthaṁ.Edible food, whether solid or subtle; contact is the second, mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.1.5Ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro āhārā bhūtānaṁ vā sattānaṁ ṭhitiyā sambhavesīnaṁ vā anuggahāyā”ti.These are the four fuels that maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born.”

2.1Evaṁ vutte, āyasmā moḷiyaphagguno bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:When he said this, Venerable Phagguna of the Top-Knot said to the Buddha,22.2“ko nu kho, bhante, viññāṇāhāraṁ āhāretī”ti?“But sir, who consumes consciousness as fuel?”3

2.3“No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:“That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.4

2.4“‘āhāretī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi.“I don’t speak of one who consumes.2.5‘Āhāretī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:If I were to speak of one who consumes, then it would be cogent to ask2.6‘ko nu kho, bhante, āhāretī’ti?who consumes.2.7Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.But I don’t speak like that.2.8Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya:Hence it would be cogent to ask:2.9‘kissa nu kho, bhante, viññāṇāhāro’ti, esa kallo pañho.‘For what is consciousness the fuel?’2.10Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:And a cogent answer to this would be:2.11‘viññāṇāhāro āyatiṁ punabbhavābhinibbattiyā paccayo, tasmiṁ bhūte sati saḷāyatanaṁ, saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso’”ti.‘Consciousness as fuel is a requirement for regeneration into a new state of existence in the future. When the being is present, there are the six sense fields. The six sense fields are requirements for contact.’”5

3.1“Ko nu kho, bhante, phusatī”ti?“But sir, who contacts?”

3.2“No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:“That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.

3.3“‘phusatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi.“I don’t speak of one who contacts.3.4‘Phusatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:If I were to speak of one who contacts, then it would be cogent to ask3.5‘ko nu kho, bhante, phusatī’ti?who contacts.3.6Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.But I don’t speak like that.3.7Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya:Hence it would be cogent to ask:3.8‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, phasso’ti, esa kallo pañho.‘What is a requirement for contact?’3.9Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:And a cogent answer to this would be:3.10‘saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā’”ti.‘The six sense fields are requirements for contact. Contact is a requirement for feeling.’”

4.1“Ko nu kho, bhante, vedayatī”ti?“But sir, who feels?”

4.2“No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:“That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.

4.3“‘vedayatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi.“I don’t speak of one who feels.4.4‘Vedayatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:If I were to speak of one who feels, then it would be cogent to ask4.5‘ko nu kho, bhante, vedayatī’ti?who feels.4.6Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.But I don’t speak like that.4.7Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya:Hence it would be cogent to ask:4.8‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, vedanā’ti, esa kallo pañho.‘What is a requirement for feeling?’4.9Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:And a cogent answer to this would be:4.10‘phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā’”ti.‘Contact is a requirement for feeling. Feeling is a requirement for craving.’”

5.1PTS 2.14“Ko nu kho, bhante, tasatī”ti?“But sir, who craves?”

5.2“No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:“That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.

5.3“‘tasatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi.“I don’t speak of one who craves.5.4‘Tasatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:If I were to speak of one who craves, then it would be cogent to ask5.5‘ko nu kho, bhante, tasatī’ti?who craves.5.6Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.But I don’t speak like that.5.7Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya:Hence it would be cogent to ask:5.8‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, taṇhā’ti, esa kallo pañho.‘What is a requirement for craving?’5.9Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:And a cogent answer to this would be:5.10‘vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānan’”ti.‘Feeling is a requirement for craving. Craving is a requirement for grasping.’”

6.1“Ko nu kho, bhante, upādiyatī”ti?“But sir, who grasps?”

6.2“No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:“That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.

6.3“‘upādiyatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi.“I don’t speak of one who grasps.6.4‘Upādiyatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:If I were to speak of one who grasps, then it would be cogent to ask6.5‘ko nu kho, bhante, upādiyatī’ti?who grasps.6.6Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.But I don’t speak like that.6.7Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya:Hence it would be cogent to ask:6.8‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, upādānan’ti, esa kallo pañho.‘What is a requirement for grasping?’6.9Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:And a cogent answer to this would be:6.10‘taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ;‘Craving is a requirement for grasping.6.11upādānapaccayā bhavo’ti …pe…Grasping is a requirement for continued existence.’ …66.12evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.

7.1Channaṁ tveva, phagguna, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā phassanirodho;When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with no residue left behind, contact ceases.77.2phassanirodhā vedanānirodho;When contact ceases, feeling ceases.7.3vedanānirodhā taṇhānirodho;When feeling ceases, craving ceases.7.4taṇhānirodhā upādānanirodho;When craving ceases, grasping ceases.7.5upādānanirodhā bhavanirodho;When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases.7.6bhavanirodhā jātinirodho;When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases.7.7jātinirodhā jarāmaraṇaṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā nirujjhanti.When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease.7.8Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hotī”ti.That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”

7.9Dutiyaṁ.

Translator’s notes

  1. In this discourse, “ignorance”, “choices”, and “name and form” are not mentioned directly, but they are, as I note below, implicit.

    ↩ sn12.12:1.1

  2. This monk appears in three discourses, in none of which he distinguishes himself. At MN 21 he is reprimanded for being too friendly with nuns. And at SN 12.32 Venerable Sāriputta gets word that Phagguna had disrobed. According to the commentary, he was called Phagguna “of the Top-Knot” because of the style he wore his hair as a layperson. The name stuck, presumably to distinguish him from the Phagguna of AN 6.56 (and probably SN 35.83) who died in robes as a non-returner after hearing a Dhamma talk.

    ↩ sn12.12:2.1

  3. Evoking the mysterious Creator ka (“who?”) of Rig Veda 121, Phagguna assumes an agent who acts, which of course would be the Self. This leans on the feature of Pali and Sanskrit whereby the agent of a verb need not be stated but can be assumed. This lends itself to the notion that a hidden agent underlies the act of creation.

    ↩ sn12.12:2.2

  4. “Ignorance” is implicit in the questions.

    ↩ sn12.12:2.3

  5. Here “rebirth into a new state of existence in the future” occupies the link between consciousness and the six senses, where we normally find “choices” and “name and form”. The being who has been reborn is referred to as bhūta. For “name and form” as the individual growing from embryo to adulthood, see DN 15:21.2).

    ↩ sn12.12:2.11

  6. The Pali text omits rebirth, etc. The commentary says Phagguna stopped asking questions here, offering three quite different reasons why. A simpler explanation would be that the text is abbreviated.

    ↩ sn12.12:6.11

  7. Here, cessation starts with the six senses (as at SN 12.24:21.9).

    ↩ sn12.12:7.1