Passāmi suddhaṁ paramaṁ arogaṁ, “I see the highest purity, free from illness, Diṭṭhena saṁsuddhi narassa hoti; A man’s purification is through what is seen.” Evābhijānaṁ paramanti ñatvā, Recollecting what he has known as the highest, Suddhānupassīti pacceti ñāṇaṁ. He rests on this knowledge, regards it as pure. *These lines neither confirm nor deny the validity of what he regards as “the highest purity”. The point is that the very attitude of taking *something* as pure and giving it priority over everything else implies conceiving (even in relation to Nibbāna, as per MN 1), and it is this very conceiving that is the root of the problem. This does not mean one should instead try to deny or dismiss everything that can be known or experienced, (which would imply ‘resting on’ that very act of denial). And resting on things in this way is not a deliberate act: it takes place simply by overlooking one’s attitude and prioritizing the content and ideas regarding the relevant experience. The question of whether the experience itself is “right” or not rests on a wrong premise.
Diṭṭhena ce suddhi narassa hoti, If a man’s purity is on account of the seen, Ñāṇena vā so pajahāti dukkhaṁ; Or if it is by knowledge that he abandons suffering, Aññena so sujjhati sopadhīko, Then he, still with appropriation, is purified by something else— *Knowledge or vision per se, in the sense of an arisen experience, no matter how lofty or extraordinary, can never be the source of purity – it is precisely by expecting purity and peace to come from ‘something else’ in this way that one overlooks how *expectation itself* is the impurity and cause of suffering. Of course, effort and diligence are a must to progress on the path, but the effort is always in relation to what is here *now* (wrong attitudes and assumptions), and if that is rightly understood, there is no room for placing any emphasis on “experiences”. Also, if it were an experience that purifies one, the purification would be gone if that experience or the memory of it were to be lost, which eventually has to happen owing to the impermanence of all phenomena. Diṭṭhī hi naṁ pāva tathā vadānaṁ. His own view has denounced him as he speaks like this.
Na brāhmaṇo aññato suddhimāha, A brahman does not speak of purity from something else, Diṭṭhe sute sīlavate mute vā; Whether in regard to the seen, heard, thought, or practised and observed. *“From something else” (_aññato_) means something external, not just out in the world, but including even mental images, perceptions and visions (the external sense fields). The overall view that enlightenment is something that “occurs” when some sort of extraordinary experience arises (i.e., a cluster of *sense objects*, no matter how elaborate) is quite common, although the particulars of it may vary. Puññe ca pāpe ca anūpalitto, He is unaffected in terms of both evil and good, Attañjaho nayidha pakubbamāno. Creating nothing in dropping what was taken up.
Purimaṁ pahāya aparaṁ sitāse, They are embedded in the next, having left what came before; Ejānugā te na taranti saṅgaṁ; Going by impetus, they cannot get past entrapment. *It is precisely the fact of being driven by longing and internal pressures that constitutes bondage, and so even the right teaching will not free one who takes it up with the same attitude of acting out of pressure that they’ve always had. Te uggahāyanti nirassajanti, They let go and take up, Kapīva sākhaṁ pamuñcaṁ gahāyaṁ. As a monkey drops one branch to grab hold of another.
Sayaṁ samādāya vatāni jantu, A person undertaking practices on their own terms, Uccāvacaṁ gacchati saññasatto; Goes high and low, tied up in notions. *Again, it is not the state of having notions that is the issue, but implicitly believing purity to lie somewhere within the sphere of notions, whether high or low. The Right View could be said to be [the understanding of the whole domain of notions and ideas](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn8#mn8:3.4-mn8:3.6), rather than just one of the many possibilities within said domain. Vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammaṁ, But the wise one, knowing through discernment the nature of things, Na uccāvacaṁ gacchati bhūripañño. With broad understanding, does not go high and low.
Sa sabbadhammesu visenibhūto, He has removed opposition in regard to all things— Yaṁ kiñci diṭṭhaṁ va sutaṁ mutaṁ vā; Whatever is seen, heard, or thought. Tameva dassiṁ vivaṭaṁ carantaṁ, As he lives transparently seeing like this, Kenīdha lokasmi vikappayeyya. By what in the world could one designate him?
Na kappayanti na purekkharonti, They do not put together or put first; Accantasuddhīti na te vadanti; They do not speak of an “utmost purity.” *Which would imply that purity is *in* that concrete phenomenon or experience they’re referring to, but as explained in the first comment above, even Nibbāna is not “pure” when accompanied by conceiving. Thus, it is the principle of non-conceiving and dispassion in regard to anything anyone might call “the utmost purity” that is the actual purity/Nibbāna. Ādānaganthaṁ gathitaṁ visajja, Having set loose the tangled knot of grasping, Āsaṁ na kubbanti kuhiñci loke. They create no longing anywhere in the world.
Sīmātigo brāhmaṇo tassa natthi, For the brahman who has surmounted limits, Ñatvā va disvā va samuggahītaṁ; Nothing known or seen is taken up. Na rāgarāgī na virāgaratto, Without passion for either passion or dispassion, Tassīdha natthi paramuggahītanti. There is nothing here for him to hold as the highest.
Suddhaṭṭhakasuttaṁ catutthaṁ.
Origin URL: https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=snp4.4