SN 12.15PTS SN 2.161 min read

Kaccānagotta

Kaccānagottasutta

Venerable Kaccānagotta asks the Buddha about right view, and the Buddha answers that right view arises when one sees the origin and cessation of the world and is free of attachments. This sutta, brief but profound and difficult, became renowned as the only canonical reference named in Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, perhaps the most famous philosophical treatise in all Buddhism.

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

0.1Saṁyutta Nikāya 12.15Linked Discourses 12.15
0.22. Āhāravagga2. Fuel

0.3KaccānagottasuttaKaccānagotta

1.1PTS 2.17Sāvatthiyaṁ viharati.At Sāvatthī.¹

1.2Atha kho āyasmā kaccānagotto yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho āyasmā kaccānagotto bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:Then Venerable Kaccānagotta went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:²

1.3“‘sammādiṭṭhi sammādiṭṭhī’ti, bhante, vuccati.“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘right view’.1.4Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sammādiṭṭhi hotī”ti?How is right view defined?”³

2.1“Dvayanissito khvāyaṁ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena—atthitañceva natthitañca.“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the duality of existence and non-existence.⁴

2.2Lokasamudayaṁ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti.But for one who truly sees the origin of the world with right understanding, the concept of non-existence regarding the world does not occur.⁵2.3Lokanirodhaṁ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passato yā loke atthitā sā na hoti.And for one who truly sees the cessation of the world with right understanding, the concept of existence regarding the world does not occur.⁶

2.4Upayupādānābhinivesavinibandho khvāyaṁ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena.This world is for the most part shackled by getting involved, grasping, and insisting.⁷

2.5Tañcāyaṁ upayupādānaṁ cetaso adhiṭṭhānaṁ abhinivesānusayaṁ na upeti na upādiyati nādhiṭṭhāti: ‘attā me’ti.But if, when it comes to this getting involved & grasping, mental fixation, and insistence & underlying tendency, they are not attracted, do not grasp, and do not fixate on the thought, “my self”,⁸2.6‘Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī’ti na kaṅkhati na vicikicchati aparapaccayā ñāṇamevassa ettha hoti.they’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Their knowledge of this is independent of others.⁹

2.7Ettāvatā kho, kaccāna, sammādiṭṭhi hoti.This is how right view is defined.

3.1‘Sabbamatthī’ti kho, kaccāna, ayameko anto.‘All exists’: this is one extreme.¹⁰

3.2‘Sabbaṁ natthī’ti ayaṁ dutiyo anto.‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme.

3.3Ete te, kaccāna, ubho ante anupagamma majjhena tathāgato dhammaṁ deseti:Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way:¹¹

3.4‘avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā;‘Ignorance is a requirement for choices.3.5saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ …pe…Choices are a requirement for consciousness. …3.6evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.

3.7Avijjāya tveva asesavirāganirodhā saṅkhāranirodho;When ignorance fades away and ceases with no residue left behind, choices cease.3.8saṅkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho …pe…When choices cease, consciousness ceases. …3.9evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hotī’”ti.That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.’”

3.10Pañcamaṁ.

Translator’s notes

This discourse was quoted by Ānanda to Channa at SN 22.90:9.1. It was cited by name in Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 15.7: “In the Advice to Kātyāyana, both ‘exists’ and ‘does not exist’ are denied by the Buddha, expert in being and non-being.” Nāgārjuna’s text, an important Buddhist philosophical treatise, is studied extensively to this day.
↩ sn12.15:1.1
Called Sandha Kātyāyana in Sanskrit.
↩ sn12.15:1.2
Right view is normally defined as understanding the four noble truths (DN 22:21.4, MN 141:24.1, SN 45.8:3.1).
↩ sn12.15:1.4
The Buddha is referring to a widely held belief, which can be traced to the saying: “This is twofold, there is no third: truth and falsehood. The gods are truth, humans are falsehood.” (Dvayaṁ vā idaṁ na tṛtīyamasti: satyaṁ caivānṛtaṁ ca. Satyameva devā anṛtam manuṣyā; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 1.1.1.4, 3.3.2.2, 3.9.4.1). The word for “truth” here is satya (Pali sacca), which like atthitā (“existence”) is an abstract noun from the root as (“exist”). The word for “falsehood” is anṛta. Pali prefers the simple negative, but satya and anṛta are a standard pair in pre-Buddhist Sanskrit, harking back to Rig Veda 7.49.3. The gods are truly real because they are immortal, whereas transient humans are not truly real. Consider also the hymn of creation at Arthava Veda 10.2.14: “Who placed truth in him, who falsehood, who mortality, who immortality?” This confirms the interpretation of both Nāgārjuna and the Theravāda tradition that existence/non-existence refers to eternalism and annihilationism. See also the discussion of “duality” at SN 35.92:2.2.
↩ sn12.15:2.1
To paraphrase, when a person sees that their current actions are generating future lives, it is no longer possible to think that this life is all there is.
The “origin of the world” is the origination sequence of dependent origination (SN 35.107; see too SN 2.26:5.2).
↩ sn12.15:2.2
To paraphrase, when a person sees the cessation of the craving and kamma that generate future lives, they realize there is no such thing as an eternal soul.
↩ sn12.15:2.3
The three factors here express a gradual process by which one is “shackled” (vinibaddha): attracted, one gets involved (upaya), then one takes up (upādāna), and finally one insists on keeping (abhinivesa). The latter term especially refers to dogmatic insistence on a view, alluding to the Brāhmaṇa text we cited earlier: “This is twofold, there is no third.” In the next sentence, the three factors are expanded with the addition of “mental fixation” (cetaso adhiṭṭhāna) and “underlying tendency” (anusaya). The latter implies that the defilement has become so ingrained that it is no longer conscious, but “underlies” choices conscious or not.
↩ sn12.15:2.4
This sentence is grammatically tricky. For tañcāyaṁ read taṁ ce ayaṁ following the Sanskrit etāni ced. Taṁ refers to the several defilements listed (hence the Sanskrit is plural), while ayaṁ is “this (person)”, namely the practitioner. Read together with the similar passage at SN 22.85:28.1, taking both as “accusative of relation”. I think the sense is that, despite the fact that these defilements are still present, the wise do not fall under their sway.
↩ sn12.15:2.5
The final sentence, as well as the absence of doubt, indicates that they have become a stream-enterer, at which stage they have confirmed right view.
↩ sn12.15:2.6
Also at SN 12.47:2.2, and said to be the “oldest cosmology” at SN 12.48:2.2.
↩ sn12.15:3.1
This “teaching by the middle way” (majjhena dhammadesanā) is the philosophical counterpart of the “middle way of practice” (majjhimā paṭipadā, SN 56.11:2.4).
↩ sn12.15:3.3