The Numerical Discourses

Chapter 12: The Single-Entry Path

Notes

1. For the source text, cf. T125.2.568a01-9b12. This sūtra is a smaller recension of the same sūtra that MN 10 and MĀ 98 represent, and its mindfulness of body section is similarly a smaller version that what is found in MĀ 81 and MN 119. This text appears to represent an intermediate point in the development of these larger sūtras that collected contemplations under the four headings of the abodes of mindfulness. As such, it provides us with evidence that the larger texts are later developments that grew as Buddhists compiled comprehensive sets of practices under this rubric. The comparative simplicity of its introduction and conclusion also illustrates how Buddhist texts became progressively more detailed and verbose in style over time.

   We might wonder why this sūtra has been placed here in the Book of Ones. Wouldn’t the four abodes of mindfulness be better placed in the Book of Fours? It also seems out of place in subject matter compared to the rest of Chapter 12 and in it’s lack of the usual conclusion (“Therefore, monks … Thus, monks, you should train yourselves.”). Like the Asura Sūtra that begins Chapter 8, it was likely a later insertion that interrupted the original flow of this sūtra collection.

   A larger related issue is that this chapter and the next appear to have become disordered in the Chinese translation, given that Chapter 12 lacks a summary verse and the verse at the end of Chapter 13 appears to reference the last four of its sūtras. As a result, we can’t be entirely certain if this sūtra was present before it was translated in China or if a later redactor inserted it.

   Nonetheless, the logic of putting it in the Book of Ones must have been that the topic of the sūtrais ostensibly the single-entry path rather than four abodes of mindfulness. [back]

2. single-entry path. C. 一入道, G. ekayana maga (?), P. ekāyana magga, S. ekāyana marga. The Indic term equivalent to C. 一入 that’s found in parallels is either S. eka-ayana or eka-āyana. Both have concrete meanings of “one way,” “one approach,” or “single-file.” However, the term also has the psychological meaning of “fixing the mind on one thing,” i.e., focus or concentration. This is the meaning that this sūtra uses to gloss the term.

   However, 一入 lit. means “one entry” in C. It should be noted that S. nyayana means “entry,” and nyayāna means “access way.” Some have pointed out that 入 often translates S. āyatana, which is yet another related word in pronunciation. Its Buddhist meaning of “sense field” echoes the psychological meaning of ekāyana. Thus, it’s difficult to determine the exact G. word that was translated to C., and I’ve yet to find an attestation in extant G. sources. My experience, though, is that the variations that happened in Buddhist Prakrit parallels can be surprising at times. It’s not entirely out of the question that the C. 一入 may have translated an equivalent of S. ekāyatana. [back]

3. abodes of mindfulness. C. 意止, P. satipaṭṭhāna, S. smṛtyupasthāna. This was an early C. translation, which lit. means “mental calming” or “mental stop.” It’s quite similar to the early translation of S. prahāṇa (~ P. padhāna) as 意斷, which means “mental ending” or “mental excision.” Both were functional rather than literal translations that attempted to capture the basic sense of what the practices acheived. I’ve decided to translate 意止 with my standard “abodes of mindfulness” to avoid confusion. [back]

4. noble eightfold path. In this passage, right speech has been placed after right method. About a third of the occurrences of the eightfold path in EĀ are inconsistently disordered. Moreover, these disordered lists are clustered in a couple fascicles of the C. translation, suggesting that they are a result of poor maintenance of the text in China. I therefore assume these instances are copyist errors and have corrected the order of the list in this passage accordingly. [back]

5. by contemplating internal body. C. 内自觀身, P. kāye kāyānupassī viharati. This translation doesn’t repeat “body” in the way other Indic parallels do in the opening formula, which is usually translated as “observing internal body as body.” Instead, 自 is used apparently to express a genitive (“from”) or instrumental (“by”) case. However, 自 can also functional as a reflexive adjective (“self-”), making the intended reading unclear. In Buddhist language, “internal” usu. refers to oneself and “external” refers to other people or the environment, which makes reading 自 as a reflexive modifier conflict with those adjectives. I’ve therefore decided to read it as an instrumental preposition: “by (自) observing (觀) internal (内) body (身).” [back]

6. He contemplates internal feelings as feelings and enjoys himself. C. 内觀痛痛而自娯樂. Here, the translation matches the Indic parallels more literally by repeating feeling (痛), but this doesn’t happen again for mind or principles afterward. In the body of the sūtra, however, this literal repetition does occur for those abodes. This leads me to conclude that this initial passage was corrupted by a Chinese copyist or editor making haphazard changes to a passage that would have been confusing to someone who didn’t know the original Indic language.

   Also, 自娯樂 is another change, depicting the results of the contemplation in a positive light as “enjoyment” or “relaxation” (娯樂). This may have been intended as an abbreviation of the original passage, but it’s repeated throughout the remainder of the sūtra. The initial translation (除去惡念無有愁憂) appears to the more accurate translation when compared to parallels. The equivalent P. expression is vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ. I’ve maintained the C. reading in this case, for the time being, but in subsequent passages I’ve removed it when out of place. It would appear a redactor added it throughout in a haphazard way. [back]

7. vomit, diarrhea. I take 生熟二藏 to mean two things: 生藏 and 熟藏. These terms appear to be literal translations of S. āma-aśaya and pakva-aśaya (“raw organ” and “digested organ”), which are Indian idioms for the stomach and colon. Given the context here, in a list of bodily fluids and contents, this would seem to refer to the contents of the stomach and the large intestine. [back]

8. food. C. 食. The P. parallel has the term sāmisa (“material, physical, flesh”) for this and nirāmisa as the negation (“not material”) in the next paragraph. It’s interesting to note that in both S. and P. āmisa can have the sense of “food with meat in it,” i.e., non-vegetarian. S. āmiṣa can mean many things related to the physical body and its desires, but it can also simply refer to food, and this is the C. translator’s reading here. The result is that these passages specifically refer to eating an almsmeal, which certainly could be a focus of desire for a mendicant who eats only once a day. [back]

9. He contemplates them as arising … ending … arising and ending. C. 彼習法而自娯樂，亦觀盡法，復觀習盡之法, P. iti ajjhattaṁ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati. Here, the C. translation is garbled at the beginning. The confusion stems from the subject being a pronoun 彼 (meaning “that” or “him” here) that lacks a verb in the initial phrase. It would be more natural to read 彼 as referring to the monk rather than the feelings discussed in the previous passages, and someone appears to have inserted 而自娯樂 (“and relaxes himself”) into the translation to add a verb for the monk to do. I’m guessing that, instead, 觀 was the verb that has been omitted. I would correct 彼習法 to 觀習法 (which is the reading in the subsequent conclusions later on in the sūtra), and then delete 而自娯樂 as spurious. I’ve translated this corrected version, which arrives at a passage close to the P. parallel.

   Uncorrected, the opening clause in the Taisho reads: “They are subject to arising, and he relaxes himself. He also contemplates them as subject to ending and further contemplates them as subject to arising and ending.” [back]

10. Perhaps he has a feeling … notions about the world. C. 或復有痛，而現在前可知可見，思惟原本。無所依倚，而自娯樂，不起世間想。, P. atthi vedanā’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti. Yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati. The P. description of contemplation of feeling ends here.

    Again, 而自娯樂 seems misplaced in this passage. I’ve removed it from my translation. The uncorrected Taisho passage would read: “Perhaps he has a feeling; he then can know and see it as it happens and reflect on its source. Without depending on anything, he enjoys himself and doesn’t produce notions about the world.” [back]

11. This conclusion appears redacted in the way that the initial formula was at the beginning of the sūtra. A notable difference is that “he enjoys himself” hasn’t been inserted, but “bad thoughts” has been replaced by “confused thoughts.” The final statement also appears extraneous, added perhaps because the abbreviated passage was confusing. [back]

12. contemplate mind as mind. C. 觀心心法而自娯樂, P. citte cittānupassī. Here, 法 has been added to make the expression mean something like “mental objects of mind.” This isn’t repeated, so I’ve ignored it as another spurious redaction. I’ve also ignored 而自娯樂 (“and he enjoys himself”) here because it doesn’t occur in the questions that begin the other sections of the sutra, which indicates that it’s another spurious insertion. [back]

13. I’ve chosen to translate this passage in a concrete way that’s contextual for the contemplation of internal mind, which would be the contemplation of one’s own mind. The C. translation, however, reads very close to the P. parallel in that it lacks a pronoun subject for the theoretical quotations (“I have a craving mind” lit. reads as simply “mind with craving”). This makes the passage more abstract than the passages about feelings above. Still, the practitioner is “realizing” (i.e., becomes directly aware of) these things, so my assumption is that they become aware of specific instances of these types of mind. I’m very tempted to translate 心 as “thought” for this reason, but I think it does mean the mind in general. An angry thought might arise, and then the practitioner surmises that their mind still has anger (i.e., capable of becoming angry).

    Of course, this and next two paragraphs would presumably also apply to external and both internal and external minds, so the context is not only one’s own mind, but also other people’s. [back]

14. his mind has collected senses. C. 有受入心, P. saṅkhittaṁ vā cittaṁ. 受入 lit. means “holding senses”, while P. saṅkhitta means “contracted.” The basic meaning would seem to be “withdrawn” or “guarded” senses, akin to the metaphor of the turtle drawing its limbs into its shell. [back]

15. Reflecting on these contemplations. C. 思惟法觀而自娯樂. Lit. “Reflecting on contemplation of these dharmas, he enjoys himself.” Dharma presumably refers to the qualities of mind that were listed above. I’ve ignored “he enjoys himself” as a spurious insertion, which has been added at a different point in the conclusion than in the previous section. [back]

16. what should and shouldn’t be considered. C. 可思惟、不可思惟. In other passages, the expression 不可思惟 means something that shouldn’t be thought about, either because it leads to immorality or it isn’t a fruitful inquiry.

    For example, at T125.2.607c28, the Buddha explains that a fool thinks jealous thoughts about another’s property or a woman’s form. Then he says bad things and wishes that those things were his own.

    Another passage at T125.2.657a19 lists four things that should never be thought about (presumably because there’s no end to them): the inconceivability of sentient beings, the world, nāga countries, and Buddha worlds.

    Thus, in this passage, I take 可思惟、不可思惟 to mean what’s appropriate and not appropriate as a subject of contemplation. [back]

17. How does a monk contemplate principles as principles? C. 云何比丘法法相觀意止, P. kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati. I’ve ignored the addition of 意止 (“abode of mindfulness”) as spurious since it wasn’t included in the questions introducing the previous three abodes. 相 is also suspicious to me as an insertion that tries to make sense of the repetition of 法 by changing it to “dharmas and aspects of dharmas.” [back]

18. awakening factor of joy. I’ve also corrected this factor of awakening, which in the Taisho reads 念覺意 instead of 喜覺意. This error occurs again in another passage below that lists the seven factors, but several other passages read as we would expect with the fourth item as 喜 (“joy”). This is another example of the textual corruption EĀ has suffered. Even basic lists like the eightfold path and factors of awakening are riddled with errors.

    awakening factor of calm. C. 猗覺意, P. passaddhisambojjhaṅga, S. praśrabdhisaṃbodhyaṅga. The early C. translation matches what we find in S. dictionaries for praśrabdhi (“trust, confidence”), yet a gloss at T125.2.746a2 interprets it to mean calming the body (“安其形體”) as a result of right livelihood (“等命者，知足於賢聖之財，悉捨家財”). Specifically, the gloss seems to mean the mendicant doesn’t busy themself with economic work. I’ve therefore translated accordingly even though the C. translation doesn’t lit. mean “calm.” [back]

19. C. 比丘於愛欲解脫，除惡、不善法。有覺、有觀，有猗念樂，於初禪，而自娯樂. The full definition of the first dhyāna occurs five times in EĀ, and each instance is garbled in one way or another. In this instance, the beginning of the definition is close to what we would expect if the original read like other Indic parallels, but after 有覺有觀 (“with perception and examination”), the passage loses coherence. My translation represents a conservative reconstruction based on the other passages in EĀ, which would read (changes in bold): 比丘於愛欲解脫，除惡、不善法。有覺、有觀，念猗喜樂，遊於初禪. I’ve ignored the insertion of 而自娯樂 here and for the second dhyāna because it isn’t added to the third or fourth dhyānas, which indicates to me that it’s spurious. [back]

20. C. 比丘捨有覺有觀，内發歡喜，專其一意。成無覺無觀，念猗喜安，遊二禪，而自娯樂. The definition of the second dhyāna also occurs five times in EĀ. While they suffer from an occasional omission and a variety of different equivalent wordings, the basic meaning is much better preserved than it is with the first dhyāna’s definition. In this instance, I’ve ignored 而自娯樂 and read 内發歡喜 as 内有歡喜. It’s also notable that the other passages indicate that 猗 (“calm”) translates samādhi in the phrase 念猗喜安 (“mindful, calm, joyous, and happy”), and 喜安 (lit. “joy and peace”) translates S. prīti-sukha, which is usually translated to C. as 喜樂 (“joy and happiness”). [back]

21. C. 比丘捨於念，修於護。恒自覺知身覺樂，諸賢聖所求，護、念、清淨，行於三禪. For the third dhyāna, we have six full translations of its definition in EĀ. There’s quite a bit of wording variety and some confusion between them that likely stems from textual corruptions. In this instance, the main issue is that the definition begins by saying that 念 (“thought”) is abandoned rather than 喜 (“joy”), which is an error repeated in most of the other passages. Beyond this error, however, the definition matches Indic parallels fairly well in its basic meaning. [back]

22. C. 比丘捨苦、樂心。無復憂、喜，無苦、無樂。護、念、清淨，樂於四禪. The definition of the fourth dhyāna in EĀ is by far the most stable and consistent, but the beginning still suffers from problems of textual confusion. In a couple cases “sorrow and happiness” becomes “grief and sorrow” and only in two instances are they described as “previous.” Beyond this, however, the remainder is translated well enough, and we can tell that the original matched other Indic parallels. In this instance, I’ve only corrected the conclusion 樂於四禪 (“enjoys the fourth dhyāna”) to 遊於四禪 (“abides in the fourth dhyāna”). [back]

23. This conclusion shares the same outline as the previous three, but the text appears to suffer from a couple corruptions. At the start, it says “彼行習法，行盡法。并行習盡之法，而自娯樂,” which lit. means: “He practices subject to arising and practices subject to ending. He also practices subject to arising and ending, and then he enjoys himself.” I’ve adjusted it to match my translation of the previous conclusions. There is also an omission before the declaration of liberation at the end of the passage. Presumably, the quote was at least introduced, so I’ve inserted that minimal reconstruction in brackets. [back]

Translator: Charles Patton

Last Revised: 28 June 2023