Chapter six

Cross-questioning: II

The standard passage in praise of the Buddha’s Dhamma states that it is sandiṭṭhiko: “to be seen here & now.” AN 6:47 [§89] explains this term with an illustration: One can see when the dhammas he teaches about—skillful and unskillful qualities—are present or absent in the mind.

The practical implication of this principle is that doubt about the Dhamma cannot be overcome simply through force of conviction. Instead, it is overcome through investigation into the mind in the present, equipped with questions that focus on the issue of what events in the mind are skillful or not. The Buddha makes this point by implication in SN 46:51 [§23], where he states that uncertainty is starved by the same activity that feeds the analysis of qualities (dhamma-vicaya) as a factor for awakening: fostering appropriate attention to “qualities that are skillful & unskillful, blameworthy & blameless, gross & refined, siding with darkness & with light.”

Thus the proper investigation of the mind in the present is done with questions framed in terms that deserve categorical answers. And, as it turns out, these are precisely the sorts of questions that the Buddha encourages in the final two situations in which he employs the strategy of cross-questioning: the questions he asks his listeners about their experience in the present, and the questions he recommends they ask themselves. Because the questions appropriate to these two situations are so similar—and in many instances actually overlap—we will discuss the two situations as one: self cross-examination.

Given that skillful questions of self cross-examination foster the analysis of qualities as a factor of awakening, and given that this factor is equated with discernment, it is only fitting that these questions build on the questions that MN 135 [§43] says are most conducive to the arising of discernment:

On the beginning level, the questions of self cross-examination continue the thrust of these questions, seeking to identify what is skillful and unskillful in general terms. Then they shift focus more to the particulars of one’s own activities, showing how to observe one’s intentions and actions, and the results of those intentions and actions, both in the immediate present and over time, so as to judge whether they are actually skillful or not. Ultimately they pursue this line of inquiry into more and more subtle levels of activity in the mind until they can uproot the subtlest levels of attachment, thus bringing about the total freedom of unbinding.

When we compare these types of cross-questioning with the sixth and seventh types listed in the preceding chapter—exploring hypotheticals—we see that their formal relationship parallels the relationship between the two major stages in the first type: cross-examining a monk accused of an offense against the Vinaya. In the preliminary stage of a Vinaya cross-examination, a learned monk is questioned about the rules relevant to the planned accusation in a way that (1) establishes, for those who may have not yet learned it, the general framework of principles on which the specific action is to be judged; and (2) reminds those who have learned the framework of points they may have forgotten. In a similar way, the act of cross-questioning a listener about a hypothetical analogy or example is meant to remind the listener of a framework or pattern with which he is already familiar and to establish the fact that the framework is useful for understanding a specific teaching or answer. In other words, this type of cross-questioning is an aid to mindfulness, in the canonical sense of the word: calling something to mind and keeping it there. The obvious difference is that in a Vinaya cross-examination the framework is provided by a set body of rules, whereas in the act of exploring a hypothetical it’s provided by the listener’s personal range of knowledge and skills.

However, in the second stage of a Vinaya cross-examination—the actual cross-examination of the accused—the questions are aimed at ferreting out particular actions so that they can be judged against general principles as to whether they constitute an offense. This is the basic pattern of the self cross-examination covered in this chapter: Particular actions and mind-states—also viewed as actions—are ferreted out so that they can be judged as skillful or not. The major difference here is that, in a Vinaya cross-examination, if the action is judged as an offense, the monk is penalized by his fellows so that he can achieve restraint in the future; whereas in self cross-examination, when an activity is judged as unskillful, the response is largely an individual matter. Seeing the harm the action entails, one tries to achieve restraint—preferably in the present, but if not, in the future—on one’s own initiative.

Thus, in simple terms, the exploration of hypotheticals uses cross-questioning to remind the listener of general principles and to establish their relevance, whereas self cross-examination uses cross-questioning to ferret out specific actions with the purpose of judging them against general principles that have already been established but whose implications in practice are still being mastered. Although both types of cross-questioning aim ultimately at greater discernment, they approach that discernment through different proximate aims: improved understanding and mindfulness in the case of exploring hypotheticals, and heightened alertness in the case of self cross-examination. When this trio of mental qualities—understanding, mindfulness, and alertness—is combined with ardency in abandoning unskillful qualities and developing skillful ones, the mind is imbued with the qualities it needs to develop the path factor of right mindfulness [§33] leading to right concentration and release. This is how the process of self cross-examination fosters the standard factors of the path.

As we noted in the Introduction, self cross-examination can function as a way of testing the initial frame of one’s questions: If all the possible answers suggested by a particular way of framing questions do not pass the test, the frame has to be readjusted or replaced. This was one of the ways the bodhisatta had to employ this sort of questioning in his quest for awakening, as he kept refining his ideas of what is skillful and not. When he became the Buddha, he was thus able to provide his students with a reliable way of framing the initial questions related to the issue of stress and its end. Because he was so confident in the reliability of those questions, he invited his students to test them through self cross-examination for themselves—although this testing often measures not only the validity of the Buddha’s framework of categorical questions, but also the validity of one’s own comprehension of that framework. This is one of the uses of self cross-examination on the path.

The other is to employ self cross-examination as a strategy for determining how best to apply the Buddha’s teachings in actual practice. The questions the Buddha recommends in this area perform this task in two ways: by investigating how one is actually applying those teachings, and by providing standards for measuring the success of that application. Thus self cross-examination, when conducted skillfully, is the process by which a student of the Buddha’s teaching can develop the level of alertness and discernment needed to become independent in the Dhamma.

It so happens that when we extract from the discourses the passages giving instruction in self cross-examination and arrange them in ascending order, from the most basic to those resulting immediately in release, we find that they begin and end with passages in which the Buddha, when asked a question, puts the question aside and then proceeds to lead his listeners in the process of self cross-examination [§149, §142]. In the first passage, the listeners end up taking refuge in the Triple Gem; in the second, many of the listeners reach full awakening. There is apparently no intended symmetry in these two passages—they are widely separated in the Canon—but this formal parallel does draw attention to the point that questions to be put aside are put aside for just this reason: They get in the way of the self-examination that is most effective for progress on the path.

In the first instance—AN 3:66 [§149], the famous discourse to the Kālāmas—the Kālāmas inform the Buddha that they have heard many teachers disparaging one another’s teachings, and would like to know which of these teachers are lying and which are telling the truth. The Buddha puts the question aside and questions the Kālāmas about which activities they have observed to be skillful and unskillful. The way in which he conducts the questioning shows that these activities are to be judged by the beneficial or harmful results they lead to, and whether those results are praised or blamed by the wise.

The implications of this line of cross-questioning are twofold. On the one hand, the Buddha is asserting the pragmatic principle that a teaching is to be judged by the results that come from putting it into practice. This is a principle he expands on in §129 and §130. On the other hand, he is also implying that a teacher is to be judged by his or her actions. After all, if the counsel of the wise is to be taken into consideration, one must have some criteria for judging who is wise and who isn’t. Thus in MN 95 [§128] he provides some of these criteria, and here it’s important to note that these criteria are expressed in the form of self cross-examination. One is responsible for observing a potential teacher’s behavior, and so—instead of asking a teacher point-blank as to whether he or she can be trusted—is encouraged to quiz oneself as to what one has observed in the teacher’s behavior in these terms: “Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed… aversion… delusion that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, ‘I know,’ while not knowing, or say, ‘I see,’ while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?”

As the Buddha points out in AN 4:192 [§55], one can come to a reliable conclusion on these questions only when one is highly observant, and only after observing the other person in a wide variety of situations over a long period of time. Thus, in the act of choosing a teacher, one must be judicious rather than judgmental, taking the responsibility of being both observant and willing to invest a fair amount of time in assessing the teacher’s behavior. Some later schools of Buddhism argued that a student would be in no position to judge a teacher, and that the act of judging others is unskillful in any event, but the Buddha himself did not adopt that attitude at all. The pursuit of truth requires a responsible attitude, which begins by taking responsibility for one’s choice of a teacher. If the teacher’s behavior is clearly unskillful, and one chooses that person for a teacher nevertheless, one is showing a highly irresponsible attitude toward the issue of skillful behavior in general. If one is willing to turn a blind eye to a teacher’s unskillful behavior, one will probably also want to turn a blind eye to one’s own.

With the questions of MN 95 we move from the area of defining skillful and unskillful in general terms, and into the area of judging the skillfulness of particular actions. MN 61 [§131] is probably the most important discourse on this level of self cross-examination, in that it not only frames the questions that one should ask when judging the skillfulness of one’s actions, but also places these questions in a larger context to show how they can best be used to learn from one’s mistakes and purify one’s actions through practice and observation.

To begin with, one’s actions—physical, verbal, and mental—are to be examined at three points in time: when intending to do them, while doing them, and after they are done. This sequence relates to two important points in understanding the nature of action. It follows (a) the principle that intention constitutes the action and (b) the principle of this/that conditionality [§19, note 1], that actions can show their results both in the immediate present and over time. As we noted in Chapter Four, the way in which the Buddha encourages judging one’s actions both by the intention motivating them and by the results they yield parallels the way a craftsperson judges a work in progress, learning from mistakes in a way that yields ever-improving results and heightened skill.

Second, this examination is to be done not alone, but with the help of a teacher. When one finds that one’s physical or verbal actions have been unskillful, one should consult a teacher or knowledgeable friend on the path. This consultation accomplishes two things. It encourages a truthful attitude toward admitting one’s mistakes, and it opens the opportunity to gain helpful advice from the knowledgeable friend. In this way the practice of skillfulness, like the act of teaching and learning in general, becomes a cooperative effort. At the same time, this consultation saves time and energy in that one is not forced to reinvent the Dhamma wheel after every mistake.

Perhaps most important of all, the context outlined in MN 61 shows the proper attitudes to bring to bear in the self cross-examination of one’s actions. The first is truthfulness. Right before outlining the questions to use in self cross-examination, the Buddha uses a series of vivid images to impress on his son, Rāhula, how important truthfulness is.

Just as with other forms of cross-questioning, self cross-examination needs to be based on the intellectual/ethical virtue of truthfulness if it is to succeed in getting at the truth of one’s unskillful habits and replacing them with skillful ones.

Another quality basic to self cross-examination is conviction in four things: in the power of one’s actions to yield results, in one’s ability to evaluate those results, in the importance of making these judgments, and in one’s ability to learn and benefit from them. We noted above that conviction on its own cannot overcome doubt about the Dhamma. Nevertheless, the process of investigation cannot get off the ground without the conviction that it is a worthwhile—or even feasible—activity. This is why the Buddha took such pains to refute those who taught doctrines, such as determinism, that deny the efficacy of action, for in a universe devoid of choice or immune to the effects of action, there is no possibility of learning from one’s mistakes. This is also why he stated in AN 2:19 [§26] that if it weren’t possible or beneficial to abandon unskillful behavior and develop skillful behavior, he wouldn’t have advocated these courses of action.

The discourses as a whole, as in SN 48:10 and AN 10:92, define conviction as conviction in the Buddha’s awakening. This does not mean conviction simply in the fact of his awakening, but also in the path that took him there. As we noted in Chapter Two, this path was a path of self cross-examination. Thus an important component of conviction in the Buddha’s awakening is that self cross-examination of one’s actions is not only possible, but also the only way to true happiness.

Other attitudes implicit in the strategy of self cross-examination advocated in MN 61 include compassion, in the desire not to harm oneself or others; integrity, in the ability to take responsibility for one’s mistakes; and a healthy sense of shame—i.e., the shame toward unworthy actions that grows from high self-esteem.

Above all, however, this process of self cross-examination is motivated by an attitude of heedfulness: a sense of the importance of one’s actions, of the dangers of unskillful action, of the rewards of developing skillful actions, and of the care needed to develop what is skillful and to abandon what is not. Without this heedfulness, the examination of one’s actions would not necessarily lead to any improvement in one’s behavior. One would simply note the presence or absence of skillful qualities and leave it at that.

This is why the Buddha said that heedfulness is the root of all skillfulness [§132]. Goodness comes, not from any innate goodness in the mind, but from a keen sense of the dangers of the unskillful habits already there, and the benefits of the skillful habits that one can develop in their place. Thus many of the questions recommended on this level of self cross-examination [§§133-135] build on MN 61 by inducing an urgent sense of heedfulness in uncovering unskillful mental actions and abandoning them as quickly and effectively as possible. And it’s important to note that the role of mindfulness in this self cross-examination [§133, §135] is not simply to note the presence or absence of particular mental states. Just as its role in MN 117 [§39] is to keep in mind the need to abandon the factors of the wrong path and develop the factors of the right, here its role is to stay focused relentlessly on the need to abandon any unskillful states that appear.

An important feature of the self cross-examination outlined in MN 61 is that it treats mental actions under the same framework as physical and verbal actions. In other words, events in the mind are to be regarded as a form of kamma: deriving from intentions, either skillful or not, and leading to results, either desirable or not. As with physical and verbal actions, these causal relationships can be observed and used as lessons in the pursuit of ever-higher levels of skillful mental action.

AN 10:51 [§135] shows how this can be done in a general way, highlighting with a list of cross-questions features of mental activity that are important to keep in mind for this purpose. SN 47:8 [§136] and SN 47:10 [§137] show how a similar process can be applied specifically to the practice of meditation, demonstrating how to read the mind to see which meditative approaches are working and which are not, so as to use that knowledge in developing the practice of mindfulness to ever more refined levels of concentration. Even though these passages don’t list explicit questions, implicit questions obviously lie behind the points the meditator should look for in reading his or her own mind: Is the mind settling down? Are the hindrances being abandoned? If not, what alternative approaches might work in bringing the mind to stillness?

The habit of looking at meditative states in the context of kamma—intention and result—is an important habit to develop, for without it there is a tendency to view states of stillness, and especially the formless states, as embodying metaphysical principles. For example, an experience of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness can easily be misread as an experience of the oneness of the cosmos, or a ground of being. An experience of the dimension of nothingness can be misread as a confirmation that nothing really exists. But as MN 121 [§138] shows, these states are best viewed as a form of action, intentionally focused on a perception, which—because of the element of intention—inevitably involves stress or disturbance, however subtle. If, after learning how to settle into a meditative state, the meditator can focus on the questions implicit in this approach—“Where is the element of stress or disturbance here? How does it compare with the degree of disturbance in other modes of perception? What action is causing it?”—these questions can prevent any metaphysical misinterpretations of the states attained, and can instead focus on how to abandon actions that are causing subtle levels of stress. As MN 121 shows, this process can lead all the way to release. In other words, cross-questioning the results of meditation in this manner fulfills two functions: It carries the questions of MN 61 to the most subtle levels of mental action and it brings the duties of the four noble truths all the way to their completion in full awakening.

A striking feature of the Buddha’s recommended course of self cross-examination in general is the frequency with which the questions are framed in terms of “I,” “me,” “my,” and “self”: “What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term benefit & happiness?” [§43] … “This bodily action I want to perform—would it lead to self-affliction…?” [§131] … “Are there any evil, unskillful qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die in the night?” [§133] … “Can I fault myself with regard to my virtue?” … “What am I becoming as the days & nights fly past?” [§134] Beginning with the first of these questions—which the Buddha identified as most basic for the development of discernment—the perception of self is used in its two primary modes: as the potential producer of happiness (“What, having been done by me,”) and as the consumer or experiencer of happiness (“my long-term benefit & happiness”). Anyone familiar with the Buddha’s teachings on not-self might find this way of framing questions strange, and yet it is not merely an artifact of grammatical conventions. These two modes of self-perception surround every desire: the sense that I—or those I cherish—will benefit from achieving the desired result (this is the “consumer”), and the sense that I (as the “producer”) will need to possess powers to bring it about. Because the path factor of right effort involves generating desire to develop skillful qualities and abandon unskillful ones, it inevitably involves the production of these two modes of self in a skillful, capable form. And passages in the discourses explicitly recommend doing just that.

First, “I” as the consumer of happiness:

And then “I” as the producer of happiness:

As these examples show, perceptions of self—if used skillfully—are an important motivator for developing heedfulness and pursuing the process of self cross-examination that fosters skillfulness in one’s thoughts, words, and deeds. In the terms of Ven. Khemaka’s analogy [§81], a skillful sense of “I am” is like the salt earth or lye or cow-dung used to wash a dirty cloth. However, in this process of self cross-examination, the perception of self is not the prime focus of inquiry. Instead, the questions shift the focus from concern for self to concern for mastering the principle of cause and effect as it governs the results of actions.

At the same time, the questions help blur the line between concern for one’s own happiness and concern for the happiness of others. MN 61 recommends avoiding not only actions that would lead to self-affliction, but also those that would lead to the affliction of others, or of both. The qualities encouraged by the inquiry in AN 10:51—being “uncovetous, without thoughts of ill will, free of sloth & drowsiness, not restless, gone beyond uncertainty, not angry, with unsoiled thoughts, with [one’s] body unaroused, with persistence aroused, & concentrated”—benefit not only the person practicing but also all the people with whom he or she comes into contact. The same holds true for the practices of generosity and virtue, on which the practice of meditation is based. Thus happiness is not viewed as a zero-sum prospect. The more skillful one becomes, the wider the happiness spread by one’s skill, and the more blurred the lines originally drawn by the categories of objectification between self and others.

Because the process of self cross-examination uses perceptions of self in this way to focus primary attention on actions, it inevitably leads the meditator to start viewing the perceptions of self as a type of action: what the texts call “I-making” and “my-making.” Because actions are judged by their skillfulness in producing desirable results, there inevitably comes the point where the question arises: “To what extent is the activity of I-making and my-making genuinely skillful?” In the course of the practice, one has been able to recognize many unskillful ways of creating a perception of “I” and “my,” and—in the process of recognizing them—to drop them for more skillful ways of identifying oneself. But, as the practice progresses, does one reach a point where any activity of I-making and my-making, regardless of how skillful, becomes an obstacle to further progress? Obviously, it has been useful in getting the mind firmly concentrated, but as MN 113 notes, if skill in the practice of concentration becomes a cause of self-exaltation, it interferes with further advances on the path. And as MN 102 [§53] notes, any sense of “I am” related to even the subtlest levels of concentration hides a remnant of clinging that stands in the way of full release.

Thus the process of self cross-examination must now turn to examine the activities of I-making and my-making to take them apart. In the terms of Ven. Khemaka’s analogy, now that the salt earth or lye or cow-dung has succeeded in washing the cloth, the cloth has to be put away in a perfumed hamper so that the lingering scent of the cleaning agents will fade away. As Ven. Khemaka says, this is done by focusing on the arising and passing away of the five clinging-aggregates—the raw material both for concentrated states of mind and for the construction of any sense of self—in a way that removes any clinging around them.

The questions of self cross-examination designed to accomplish this task thus shift their framework to three perceptions—inconstancy, stress, and not-self—which are applied either to the aggregates [§140, §142] or to the sense media [§141] as they are directly experienced. In the case of the aggregates, each aggregate is examined with questions in this order: “Is this constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant.” “And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?” “Stressful.” “And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?” “No.” To see in terms of these perceptions ultimately leads to a total abandoning of clinging for any of the aggregates—including the perception-aggregate that accomplished this task—and the mind is released.

In the case of the sense media, the same questionnaire is applied to each sense medium, and to the events dependent on it, in this order: the internal sense medium (e.g., the eye), the corresponding external sense medium (e.g., forms), consciousness at that medium, contact at that medium, and anything that arises dependent on that contact as a mode of feeling, perception, fabrication, or consciousness. Because the five physical senses are instances of the form aggregate, this version of the questionnaire—though focused on the sense media—manages to encompass all five aggregates as well.

Notice that although this level of cross-examination has dropped any reference to self, it has maintained the framework of skillful and unskillful action. The last question in the series does not demand the conclusion that there is no self. Instead, it asks simply whether it is fitting—skillful—to identify an inconstant, stressful event as one’s self. In other words, the Buddha is not asking one to come to a metaphysical conclusion on the question, created by objectification, as to the existence or non-existence of the self. After all, as we saw in the discussion of SN 12:15 in Chapter Three, the mind on the verge of awakening doesn’t see the world in terms of existence or non-existence in any event, so the question of the existence or non-existence of the self would be irrelevant. Thus, instead of pushing the questioning into the realm of objectification, the Buddha is simply pushing the line of inquiry about skillful action to its subtlest level—the act of self-identification—at the same time raising the pragmatic standard of what counts as skillful so as to abandon all acts of self-identification and attain total freedom.

This point is made dramatically in MN 109 [§142]—which we identified above as the concluding passage where the Buddha puts aside a question and proceeds to lead his listeners in the process of self cross-examination leading to release. In this passage, a monk—hearing that the five aggregates are not-self—asks himself the sort of question that is often heard in introductory academic courses on Buddhism: “If there is no self, then…” In this case, the monk’s question is: “So—form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?” In other words, the monk apparently sees in the not-self teaching an opening to deny that anyone will receive the results of kamma—a notion that can short-circuit any attempt to abandon unskillful kamma and to develop skillful kamma in its place. The Buddha, reading the monk’s mind, denounces the question and, putting it aside, engages all the monks in the line of cross-questioning introduced in SN 22:59 [§140]. In doing so, he is demonstrating the proper way to use the perception of not-self: not to draw metaphysical conclusions, but to question the skillfulness of the actions of I-making and my-making, so that those actions can be dropped and liberation found. This is precisely what happens during this discourse. Sixty monks gain total release.

A similar process is recorded more systematically in AN 9:36 [§139]. There the Buddha recommends that when a meditator has mastered any of the meditative absorptions, he/she should look for the way in which that absorption is composed of the activities of the aggregates. Once these activities are detected, they should be viewed not only as inconstant, stressful, and not-self, but also as “a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness.” In other words, one should learn to regard them in a way that induces a sense of disenchantment and dispassion for them, so that one will lose all interest in continuing to engage in the attempt to find happiness in anything at all that is intended or fabricated. (A similar point is made at the end of MN 121 [§138.]) Because all other avenues toward happiness have now been shut off, the mind inclines toward a happiness totally unfabricated. If it can maintain that stance, an opening to full awakening can occur.

Now, it is entirely possible that the mind pursuing this line of cross-questioning may not have the powers of concentration and discernment needed to abandon all clinging. As AN 9:36 points out, even if one can maintain a stance inclined toward the deathless, a remnant of passion and delight for that Dhamma might still prevent full awakening, leading instead to the penultimate attainment of non-return. And as MN 106 shows, there are cases where the perception of not-self doesn’t even lead that far, arriving instead only at refined states of concentration. Thus the final set of questions in self cross-examination gives guidelines for evaluating one’s attainment [§143, §144]. Although the criteria for coming to the conclusion that one is an arahant, as phrased in §144, are not expressed as questions, there are questions implicit behind them. And although the evaluation employs the terms “I am,” this is one case where this phrase is purely a grammatical convention, for the arahant has no further use for conceit at all.

In this way, the process of cross-questioning functions not only to yield progress on the path, but also to evaluate the goal after it is reached. In other words, there is no level of the practice where it is inappropriate to pose questions in a skillful way. Anything that cannot stand up to questioning can’t be genuine Dhamma; if anything is genuine Dhamma, it is sure to pass the test.

As we saw in Chapter Two, the Buddha’s quest for awakening was primarily a process of cross-questioning in various forms. The same is true for anyone following the Buddha’s path. And as a number of discourses show, the various forms of cross-questioning are mutually supportive in this endeavor. A primary example is MN 109 [§142]: It begins with an anonymous monk cross-questioning the Buddha on the meaning of his teachings. The Buddha’s openness to questioning, in turn, provides an atmosphere conducive for the monks to gain awakening as he cross-questions them on the activity of I-making and my-making occurring in their minds.

Three other discourses show how the Buddha’s students were also able to combine various forms of cross-questioning to good effect. In MN 84 [§100], King Koravya cross-questions Ven. Raṭṭhapāla about the meaning of the Buddha’s teachings that led the latter to ordain. The king is portrayed as an amiable but very unenlightened individual—something of a spiritual innocent. To make his points, Ven. Raṭṭhapāla is forced to draw simple examples from the king’s own life and to cross-question him about them. And as often happens when innocent people ask questions on basic matters, the discussion reveals a fundamental point—in this case, the parallel between the facts of aging, illness, and death on the one hand, and the perceptions of inconstancy, stress, and not-self on the other. Nowhere else in the discourses is this parallel drawn so clearly.

In MN 146 [§77], Ven. Nandaka teaches a group of nuns with what he calls a “cross-questioning talk,” inviting them to question him on any statement they don’t understand. None of them take advantage of the invitation but, as they remark, they appreciate his openness. He then employs two other types of cross-questioning: (1) asking them to examine the activity of I-making with regard to the six sense media; and (2) cross-questioning them on the analogies with which he illustrates his points. The discourse states that the first time he does this, the nuns do not achieve awakening. However, the Buddha asks him to repeat the talk two weeks later, and this time even the most backward of the nuns achieves stream-entry.

A similar atmosphere of openness prevails in SN 22:89 [§81], where a group of elder monks cross-question Ven. Khemaka about his level of attainment—apparently a common occurrence among the monks when one of them was seriously ill. As they ask him to explain what is essentially the non-returner’s remnant of conceit, he illustrates his points with hypothetical analogies, on which he cross-questions them. The process proves so clarifying that monks on both sides of the exchange—sixty of the elders and Ven. Khemaka himself—achieve full awakening.

These examples illustrate three important points. The first is that the various modes of cross-questioning are mutually reinforcing, establishing an atmosphere of respect, trust, and openness in which the responsible exchange of ideas is conducive to clarity. The second is that, although self cross-examination is the primary mode leading directly to awakening, other modes of cross-questioning—such as questioning a speaker and exploring hypotheticals—can lead directly to awakening as well. However, it is likely that these modes of cross-questioning inspired the individuals involved to engage simultaneously in self cross-examination, reflecting on how the lessons they were learning applied directly to what they were experiencing in their minds.

Finally, these examples show that the Buddha was able to pass some of his skill in cross-questioning on to his students, as a distinctive rhetorical approach conducive to keeping the quest for awakening alive.

Readings

§ 128. [Kāpadika Bhāradvāja:] “But to what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth.”

“There is the case, Bhāradvāja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder’s son goes to him and observes him with regard to three qualities—qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: ‘Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, “I know,” while not knowing, or say, “I see,” while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & suffering?’ As he observes him, he comes to know, ‘There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed…. His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can’t easily be taught by a person who’s greedy.’

“When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on greed, he next observes him with regard to qualities based on aversion: ‘Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on aversion that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, “I know,” while not knowing, or say, “I see,” while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & suffering?’ As he observes him, he comes to know, ‘There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on aversion…. His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not aversive. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can’t easily be taught by a person who’s aversive.’

“When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on aversion, he next observes him with regard to qualities based on delusion: ‘Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on delusion that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, “I know,” while not knowing, or say, “I see,” while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & suffering?’ As he observes him, he comes to know, ‘There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on delusion…. His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not deluded. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can’t easily be taught by a person who’s deluded.’

“When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates [lit: “weighs,” “compares”]. Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

“To this extent, Bhāradvāja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth.”

“Yes, Master Gotama, to this extent there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. We regard this as an awakening to the truth. But to what extent is there the final attainment of the truth? To what extent does one finally attain the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the final attainment of the truth.”

“The cultivation, development, & pursuit of those very same qualities: To this extent, Bhāradvāja, there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. I describe this as the final attainment of the truth.”

“Yes, Master Gotama, to this extent there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. We regard this as the final attainment of the truth. But what quality is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for the final attainment of the truth.”

“Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bhāradvāja. If one didn’t make an exertion, one wouldn’t finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth.”

“But what quality is most helpful for exertion? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for exertion.”

“Contemplating is most helpful for exertion, Bhāradvāja. If one didn’t contemplate, one wouldn’t make an exertion. Because one contemplates, one makes an exertion. Therefore, contemplating is most helpful for exertion.”

“But what quality is most helpful for contemplating?…”

“Being willing…. If one weren’t willing, one wouldn’t contemplate….”

“But what quality is most helpful for being willing?…”

“Desire…. If desire didn’t arise, one wouldn’t be willing….”

“But what quality is most helpful for desire?…”

“Coming to an agreement through pondering dhammas…. If one didn’t come to an agreement through pondering dhammas, desire wouldn’t arise….”

“But what quality is most helpful for coming to an agreement through pondering dhammas?…”

“Penetrating the meaning…. If one didn’t penetrate the meaning, one wouldn’t come to an agreement through pondering dhammas….”

“But what quality is most helpful for penetrating the meaning?…”

“Remembering the Dhamma…. If one didn’t remember the Dhamma, one wouldn’t penetrate the meaning….”

“But what quality is most helpful for remembering the Dhamma?… ”

“Hearing the Dhamma…. If one didn’t hear the Dhamma, one wouldn’t remember the Dhamma….”

“But what quality is most helpful for hearing the Dhamma?… ”

“Lending ear…. If one didn’t lend ear, one wouldn’t hear the Dhamma….”

“But what quality is most helpful for lending ear?… ”

“Growing close…. If one didn’t grow close, one wouldn’t lend ear….”

“But what quality is most helpful for growing close?… ”

“Visiting…. If one didn’t visit, one wouldn’t grow close….”

“But what quality is most helpful for visiting? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for visiting.”

“Conviction is most helpful for visiting, Bhāradvāja. If conviction [in a person] didn’t arise, one wouldn’t visit [that person]. Because conviction arises, one visits. Therefore, conviction is most helpful for visiting.”

“We have asked Master Gotama about safeguarding the truth, and Master Gotama has answered about safeguarding the truth. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified. We have asked Master Gotama about awakening to the truth, and Master Gotama has answered about awakening to the truth. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified. We have asked Master Gotama about finally attaining the truth, and Master Gotama has answered about finally attaining the truth. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified. We have asked Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for finally attaining the truth, and Master Gotama has answered about the quality most helpful for finally attaining the truth. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified. Whatever we have asked Master Gotama, Master Gotama has answered it. We like that & agree with that, and so we are gratified.

“We used to think, ‘Who are these bald-headed “contemplatives,” these menial, dark offspring of [Brahmā,] the Kinsman’s feet? Who are they to know the Dhamma?’ But now Master Gotama has inspired within us a contemplative-love for contemplatives, a contemplative-confidence in contemplatives, a contemplative-respect for contemplatives. Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama—through many lines of reasoning—made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life.” — MN 95

§ 129. “Gotamī, the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome’: You may hold categorically, ‘This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher’s instruction.’

“As for the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome’: You may hold categorically, ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’” — AN 8:53

§ 130. “Upāli, the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities do not lead to utter disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, nor to unbinding’: You may hold categorically, ‘This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher’s instruction.’

“As for the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to utter disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to unbinding’: You may hold categorically, ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’” — AN 7:80

§ 131. “What do you think, Rāhula? What is a mirror for?”

“For reflection, sir.”

“In the same way, Rāhula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection.

“Whenever you want to perform a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I want to perform—would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

“While you are performing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I am doing—is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

“Having performed a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I did—did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful qualities.

[Similarly with verbal actions.]

“Whenever you want to perform a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I want to perform—would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then any mental action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful mental action with happy consequences, happy results, then any mental action of that sort is fit for you to do.

“While you are performing a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I am doing—is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

“Having performed a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I did—did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it. Feeling distressed… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful mental action with happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful qualities.

“Rāhula, all those contemplatives & brahmans in the course of the past who purified their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, did it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way.

“All those contemplatives & brahmans in the course of the future who will purify their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, will do it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way.

“All those contemplatives & brahmans at present who purify their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, do it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way.

“Thus, Rāhula, you should train yourself: ‘I will purify my bodily actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my mental actions through repeated reflection.’ That’s how you should train yourself.” — MN 61 [See also §138]

§ 132. “Just as the footprints of all legged animals are encompassed by the footprint of the elephant, and the elephant’s footprint is reckoned the foremost among them in terms of size; in the same way, all skillful qualities are rooted in heedfulness, converge in heedfulness, and heedfulness is reckoned the foremost among them.” — AN 10:15

§ 133. “Monks, mindfulness of death—when developed & pursued—is of great fruit & great benefit. It gains a footing in the deathless, has the deathless as its final end. And how is mindfulness of death developed & pursued so that it is of great fruit & great benefit, gains a footing in the deathless, and has the deathless as its final end?

“There is the case where a monk, as day departs and night returns, reflects: ‘Many are the [possible] causes of my death. A snake might bite me, a scorpion might sting me, a centipede might bite me. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me. Stumbling, I might fall; my food, digested, might trouble me; my bile might be provoked, my phlegm… piercing wind forces [in the body] might be provoked. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me.’ Then the monk should investigate: ‘Are there any evil, unskillful qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die in the night?’

“If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.

“But if, on reflecting, he realizes that there are no evil, unskillful qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then for that very reason he should dwell in joy & rapture, training himself day & night in skillful qualities.

“Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, as night departs and day returns, reflects: ’Many are the [possible] causes of my death. A snake might bite me, a scorpion might sting me, a centipede might bite me. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me. Stumbling, I might fall; my food, digested, might trouble me; my bile might be provoked, my phlegm… piercing wind forces [in the body] might be provoked. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me.’ Then the monk should investigate: ‘Are there any evil, unskillful qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die during the day?’

“If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die during the day, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.

“But if, on reflecting, he realizes that there are no evil, unskillful qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die during the day, then for that very reason he should dwell in joy & rapture, training himself day & night in skillful qualities.

“This, monks, is how mindfulness of death is developed & pursued so that it is of great fruit & great benefit, gains a footing in the deathless, and has the deathless as its final end.” — AN 6:20

§ 134. “There are these ten things that a person gone-forth should reflect on often. Which ten?

“‘I have become casteless’: A person gone forth should often reflect on this.

“‘My life is dependent on others’….

“‘My behavior should be different [from that of householders]’….

“‘Can I fault myself with regard to my virtue?’…

“‘Can my knowledgeable fellows in the holy life, on close examination, fault me with regard to my virtue?’…

“‘I will grow different, separate from all that is dear & appealing to me’….

“‘I am the owner of actions (kamma), heir to actions, born of actions, related through actions, and have actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir’….

“‘What am I becoming as the days & nights fly past?’…

“‘Do I delight in an empty dwelling?’…

“‘Have I attained a superior human attainment, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision, such that—when my fellows in the holy life question me in the last days of my life—I won’t feel abashed?’: A person gone forth should often reflect on this.

“These are the ten things that a person gone-forth should reflect on often.” — AN 10:48

§ 135. “Even if a monk is not skilled in the ways of the minds of others [not skilled in reading the minds of others], he should train himself: ‘I will be skilled in reading my own mind.’

“And how is a monk skilled in reading his own mind? Imagine a young woman—or man—fond of adornment, examining the image of her own face in a bright, clean mirror or bowl of clear water: If she saw any dirt or blemish there, she would try to remove it. If she saw no dirt or blemish there, she would be pleased, her resolves fulfilled: ‘How fortunate I am! How clean I am!’ In the same way, a monk’s self-examination is very productive in terms of skillful qualities [if he conducts it in this way]: ‘Do I usually remain covetous or not? With thoughts of ill will or not? Overcome by sloth & drowsiness or not? Restless or not? Uncertain or gone beyond uncertainty? Angry or not? With soiled thoughts or unsoiled thoughts? With my body aroused or unaroused? Lazy or with persistence aroused? Unconcentrated or concentrated?’

“If, on examination, a monk knows, ‘I usually remain covetous, with thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless, uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or unconcentrated,’ then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.

“But if, on examination, a monk knows, ‘I usually remain uncovetous, without thoughts of ill will, free of sloth & drowsiness, not restless, gone beyond uncertainty, not angry, with unsoiled thoughts, with my body unaroused, with persistence aroused, & concentrated,’ then his duty is to make an effort in maintaining those very same skillful qualities further for the ending of fermentations.” — AN 10:51

§ 136. “Suppose that a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook has presented a king or a king’s minister with various kinds of curry: mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He doesn’t read [lit: “pick up the theme of”] his master, thinking, ‘Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry, or he praises that curry’…. As a result, he isn’t rewarded with clothing or wages or gifts. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook doesn’t read his own master.

“In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind doesn’t become concentrated, his defilements [Comm: the five hindrances] aren’t abandoned. He doesn’t read that fact. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves… the mind in & of itself… qualities in & of themselves—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on qualities in & of themselves, his mind doesn’t become concentrated, his defilements aren’t abandoned. He doesn’t read that fact. As a result, he isn’t rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk doesn’t read his own mind.

“Now suppose that a wise, experienced, skillful cook has presented a king or a king’s minister with various kinds of curry…. He reads his master, thinking, ‘Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry or he praises that curry’…. As a result, he is rewarded with clothing, wages, & gifts. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced, skillful cook reads his own master.

“In the same way, there are cases where a wise, experienced, skillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself… feelings in & of themselves… the mind in & of itself… qualities in & of themselves—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on qualities in & of themselves, his mind becomes concentrated, his defilements are abandoned. He reads that fact. As a result, he is rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, together with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced, skillful monk reads his own mind.” — SN 47:8

§ 137. “Ānanda, if a monk or nun remains with mind well established in the four establishings of mindfulness, he/she may be expected to realize greater-than-ever distinction.

“There is the case of a monk who remains focused on the body in & of itself—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, a fever based on the body arises within his body, or there is sluggishness in his awareness, or his mind becomes scattered externally. He should then direct his mind to any inspiring theme [Comm: such as recollection of the Buddha]. As his mind is directed to any inspiring theme, delight arises within him. In one who feels delight, rapture arises. In one whose mind is enraptured, the body grows serene. His body serene, he feels pleasure. As he feels pleasure, his mind grows concentrated. He reflects, ‘I have attained the aim to which my mind was directed. Let me withdraw [my mind from the inspiring theme].’ He withdraws & engages neither in directed thought nor in evaluation. He discerns, ‘I am not thinking or evaluating. I am inwardly mindful & at ease.’

“Furthermore, he remains focused on feelings… mind… qualities in & of themselves—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on qualities in & of themselves, a fever based on qualities arises within his body, or there is sluggishness in his awareness, or his mind becomes scattered externally. He should then direct his mind to any inspiring theme. As his mind is directed to any inspiring theme, delight arises within him. In one who feels delight, rapture arises. In one whose mind is enraptured, the body grows serene. His body serene, he is sensitive to pleasure. As he feels pleasure, his mind grows concentrated. He reflects, ‘I have attained the aim to which my mind was directed. Let me withdraw.’ He withdraws & engages neither in directed thought nor in evaluation. He discerns, ‘I am not thinking or evaluating. I am inwardly mindful & at ease.’

“This, Ānanda, is development based on directing. And what is development based on not directing? A monk, when not directing his mind to external things, discerns, ‘My mind is not directed to external things. It is not attentive to what is in front or behind. It is released & undirected. And furthermore, I remain focused on the body in & of itself. I am ardent, alert, mindful, & at ease.’

“When not directing his mind to external things, he discerns, ‘My mind is not directed to external things. It is not attentive to what is in front or behind. It is released & undirected. And furthermore, I remain focused on feelings… mind… qualities in & of themselves. I am ardent, alert, mindful, & at ease.’

“This, Ānanda, is development based on not directing.

“Now, Ānanda, I have taught you development based on directing and development based on not directing. What a teacher should do out of compassion for his disciples, seeking their benefit, that I have done for you. Over there are [places to sit at] the roots of trees. Over there are empty dwellings. Do jhāna, Ānanda. Don’t be heedless. Don’t be remorseful in the future. That is our instruction to you all.” — SN 47:10

§ 138. “Ānanda, just as this palace of Migāra’s mother [in the monastery constructed by Lady Visākhā near Sāvatthī] is empty of elephants, cattle, & mares, empty of gold & silver, empty of assemblies of women & men, and there is only this non-emptiness—the singleness based on the community of monks; even so, Ānanda, a monk—not attending to the perception [mental label] of village, not attending to the perception of human being—attends to the singleness based on the perception of wilderness. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its perception of wilderness.

“He discerns that ‘Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of village… that would exist based on the perception of human being, are not present. There is only this modicum of disturbance: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.’ He discerns that ‘This mode of perception is empty of the perception of village. This mode of perception is empty of the perception of human being. There is only this non-emptiness: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.’ Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: ‘There is this.’ And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure.

“Furthermore, Ānanda, the monk—not attending to the perception of human being, not attending to the perception of wilderness—attends to the singleness based on the perception of earth. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its perception of earth. Just as a bull’s hide is stretched free from wrinkles with a hundred stakes, even so—without attending to all the ridges & hollows, the river ravines, the tracts of stumps & thorns, the craggy irregularities of this earth—he attends to the singleness based on the perception of earth. His mind… settles & indulges in its perception of earth.

“He discerns that ‘Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of human being… that would exist based on the perception of wilderness, are not present. There is only this modicum of disturbance: the singleness based on the perception of earth.’ He discerns that ‘This mode of perception is empty of the perception of human being… empty of the perception of wilderness. There is only this non-emptiness: the singleness based on the perception of earth.’ Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: ‘There is this.’ And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure.

“Furthermore, Ānanda, the monk—not attending to the perception of wilderness, not attending to the perception of earth—attends to the singleness based on the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space…. [and so on through the four formless attainments. Then:]

“Furthermore, Ānanda, the monk—not attending to the perception of the dimension of nothingness, not attending to the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—attends to the singleness based on the themeless concentration of awareness. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its themeless concentration of awareness.

“He discerns that ‘Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of the dimension of nothingness… on the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.’ He discerns that ‘This mode of perception is empty….[etc.]’

“Furthermore, Ānanda, the monk—not attending to the perception of the dimension of nothingness, not attending to the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—attends to the singleness based on the themeless concentration of awareness. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its themeless concentration of awareness.

“He discerns that ‘This themeless concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.’ And he discerns that ‘Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.’ For him—thus knowing, thus seeing—the mind is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

“He discerns that ‘Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the fermentation of sensuality… the fermentation of becoming… the fermentation of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.’ He discerns that ‘This mode of perception is empty of the fermentation of sensuality… the fermentation of becoming… the fermentation of ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.’ Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: ‘There is this.’ And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure—superior & unsurpassed.” — MN 121

§ 139. “Suppose that an archer or archer’s apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, and to pierce great masses. In the same way, there is the case where a monk… enters & remains in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: ‘This is peace, this is exquisite—the pacification of all fabrications; the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; unbinding.’

“Staying right there, he reaches the ending of fermentations. Or, if not, then—through this very Dhamma-passion, this Dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five fetters [self-identity views, grasping at habits & practices, uncertainty, sensual passion, and irritation]—he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world….

[Similarly with the second, third, and fourth jhāna.]

“…. Suppose that an archer or archer's apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, and to pierce great masses. In the same way, there is the case where a monk… enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: ‘This is peace, this is exquisite—the pacification of all fabrications; the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; unbinding.’

“Staying right there, he reaches the ending of fermentations. Or, if not, then—through this very Dhamma-passion, this very Dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five fetters—he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world….

[Similarly with the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness and the dimension of nothingness.]” — AN 9:36

§ 140. “What do you think, monks? Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“… Is feeling constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”…

“… Is perception constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”…

“… Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”…

“What do you think, monks? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Any feeling whatsoever….

“Any perception whatsoever….

“Any fabrications whatsoever….

“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted in the Blessed One’s words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the group of five monks, through no clinging [not being sustained], were released from fermentations. — SN 22:59

§ 141. I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Sāvatthī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Then, as he was alone in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in the Blessed One’s awareness: “The qualities that ripen in release have ripened in Rāhula. What if I were to lead Rāhula further to the ending of fermentations?”

Then the Blessed One, early in the morning, put on his robes and, carrying his bowl & outer robe, went into Sāvatthī for alms. Having gone for alms in Sāvatthī, after the meal, returning from his alms round, he said to Ven. Rāhula, “Fetch your sitting cloth, Rāhula. We will go to the Grove of the Blind to spend the day.”

Responding, “As you say, lord,” to the Blessed One, Ven. Rāhula, carrying his sitting cloth, followed behind the Blessed One. Now at that time, many thousands of devas were following behind the Blessed One, (thinking,) “Today the Blessed One will lead Ven. Rāhula further to the ending of fermentations.”

Then the Blessed One, having plunged into the Grove of the Blind, sat down on a seat made ready at the foot of a tree. Ven. Rāhula, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side.

As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “What do you think, Rāhula? Is the eye constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think? Are forms constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think? Is eye-consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think? Is eye-contact constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think? Whatever there is that arises in dependence on eye-contact as a mode of feeling, a mode of perception, a mode of fabrication, or a mode of consciousness: Is it constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Is the ear constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord” …

“What do you think, Rāhula? Is the nose constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord” …

“What do you think, Rāhula? Is the tongue constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord” …

“What do you think, Rāhula? Is the body constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord” …

“What do you think, Rāhula? Is the intellect constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think? Are ideas constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think? Is intellect-consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think? Is intellect-contact constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think? Whatever there is that arises in dependence on intellect-contact as a mode of feeling, a mode of perception, a mode of fabrication, or a mode of consciousness: Is it constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Seeing thus, Rāhula, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with eye-consciousness, disenchanted with eye-contact. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on eye-contact as a mode of feeling, a mode of perception, a mode of fabrication, or a mode of consciousness: With that too he grows disenchanted.

“He grows disenchanted with the ear…

“He grows disenchanted with the nose…

“He grows disenchanted with the tongue…

“He grows disenchanted with the body…

“He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with intellect-consciousness, disenchanted with intellect-contact. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on intellect-contact as a mode of feeling, a mode of perception, a mode of fabrication, or a mode of consciousness: With that too he grows disenchanted. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Rāhula delighted in the Blessed One’s words. And while this explanation was being given, Ven. Rāhula’s mind, through lack of clinging [not being sustained], was released from fermentations. And to those many thousands of devas there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: “Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.” — MN 147

§ 142. [A certain monk] asked the Blessed One a further question: “Knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there—with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs—no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit?”

“Monk, one sees any form whatsoever—past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near—every form, as it actually is with right discernment: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“One sees any feeling whatsoever… any perception whatsoever… any fabrications whatsoever…

“One sees any consciousness whatsoever—past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near—every consciousness—as it actually is with right discernment: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Monk, knowing in this way, seeing in this way, there is—with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs—no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit.”

Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: “So—form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?”

Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk’s awareness, addressed the monks: “It’s possible that a senseless person—immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving—might think that he could outsmart the Teacher’s message in this way: ‘So—form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?’ Now, monks, haven’t I trained you in cross-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think? Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“… Is feeling constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”….

“… Is perception constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”….

“… Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”….

“What do you think, monks? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Any feeling whatsoever….

“Any perception whatsoever….

“Any fabrications whatsoever….

“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One’s words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of sixty monks, through no clinging [not being sustained], were released from fermentations. — MN 109

§ 143. “There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, considers thus: ‘Is there any internal enthrallment unabandoned in me that, enthralled with which, my enthralled mind would not know or see things as they have come to be?’ If a monk is enthralled with sensual passion, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with ill will, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with sloth and torpor, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with restlessness and anxiety, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with uncertainty, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is absorbed in speculation about this world, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is given to arguing and quarreling and disputing, stabbing others with weapons of the mouth, then his mind is enthralled.

“He discerns that, ‘There is no enthrallment unabandoned in me that, enthralled with which, my enthralled mind would not know and see things as they have come to be. My mind is well directed for awakening to the truths.’ This is the first knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people.

“Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: ‘When I cultivate, develop, and pursue this view, do I personally obtain serenity, do I personally obtain unbinding?’

“He discerns that, ‘When I cultivate, develop, and pursue this view, I personally obtain serenity, I personally obtain unbinding.’ This is the second knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people.

“Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: ‘Is there, outside of this [Dhamma & Vinaya], any other contemplative or brahman endowed with the sort of view with which I am endowed?’

“He discerns that, ‘There is no other contemplative or brahman outside of this [Dhamma & Vinaya] endowed with the sort of view with which I am endowed.’ This is the third knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people.

“Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: ‘Am I endowed with the character of a person consummate in view?’ What is the character of a person consummate in view? This is the character of a person consummate in view: Although he may commit some kind of offence for which a means of rehabilitation has been laid down, still he immediately confesses, reveals, and discloses it to the Teacher or to wise companions in the holy life; having done that, he undertakes restraint for the future. Just as a young, tender infant lying on his back, when he has hit a live ember with his hand or his foot, immediately draws back; in the same way, this is the character of a person consummate in view: Although he may commit some kind of offence for which a means of rehabilitation has been laid down, still he immediately confesses, reveals, and discloses it to the Teacher or to wise companions in the holy life; having done that, he undertakes restraint for the future.

“He discerns that, ‘I am endowed with the character of a person consummate in view.’ This is the fourth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people.

“Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: ‘Am I endowed with the character of a person consummate in view?’ What is the character of a person consummate in view? This is the character of a person consummate in view: Although he may be active in the various affairs of his companions in the holy life, he still has a keen regard for training in heightened virtue, training in heightened mind, & training in heightened discernment. Just as a cow with a new calf watches after her calf all the while she is grazing on grass, in the same way, this is the character of a person consummate in view: Although he may be active in the various affairs of his companions in the holy life, he still has a keen regard for training in heightened virtue, training in heightened mind, & training in heightened discernment.

“He discerns that, ‘I am endowed with the character of a person consummate in view.’ This is the fifth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people.

“Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: ‘Am I endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view?’ What is the strength of a person consummate in view? This is the strength of a person consummate in view: When the Dhamma & Vinaya proclaimed by the Tathāgata is being taught, he heeds it, gives it attention, engages it with all his mind, hears the Dhamma with eager ears.

“He discerns that, ‘I am endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view.’ This is the sixth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people.

“Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: ‘Am I endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view?’ What is the strength of a person consummate in view? This is the strength of a person consummate in view: When the Dhamma & Vinaya proclaimed by the Tathāgata is being taught, he gains understanding in the meaning, gains understanding in the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma.

“He discerns that, ‘I am endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view.’ This is the seventh knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people.

“A disciple of the noble ones thus possessed of seven factors has well examined the character for the realization of the fruit of stream entry. A disciple of the noble ones thus possessed of seven factors is endowed with the fruit of stream entry.” — MN 48

§ 144. “There is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner [i.e., a stream-winner, once-returner, or non-returner], can discern that ‘I am a learner,’ and whereby a monk who is an adept [i.e., an arahant], standing at the level of an adept, can discern that ‘I am an adept.’

“And what is the manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that ‘I am a learner’? There is the case where a monk is a learner. He discerns, as it has come to be, that ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress… This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’ This is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that ‘I am a learner.’

“Furthermore, the monk who is a learner reflects, ‘Is there outside of this [Dhamma & Vinaya] any contemplative or brahman who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One?’ And he discerns, ‘No, there is no contemplative or brahman outside of this [Dhamma & Vinaya] who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.’ This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that ‘I am a learner.’

“Furthermore, the monk who is a learner discerns the five faculties: the faculty of conviction… persistence… mindfulness… concentration… discernment. Having penetrated them with discernment, he sees what their destiny, excellence, rewards, & consummation are, but he does not dwell touching them with his body. This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that ‘I am a learner.’

“And what is the manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that ‘I am an adept’? There is the case where a monk who is an adept discerns the five faculties: the faculty of conviction… persistence… mindfulness… concentration… discernment. Having penetrated them with discernment, he sees what their destiny, excellence, rewards, & consummation are, and he dwells touching them with his body. This is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that ‘I am an adept.’

“Furthermore, the monk who is an adept discerns the six sense faculties: the faculty of the eye… ear… nose… tongue… body… intellect. He discerns, ‘These six sense faculties will cease entirely, everywhere, & in every way without remainder, and no other set of six sense faculties will arise anywhere or in any way.’ This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that ‘I am an adept.’” — SN 48:53