Reading guide
The teaching in one sentence
Pleasure and pain arise from intention conditioned by ignorance, and when ignorance ends without residue, so does the basis on which they could arise.
Three doors, one condition
The opening states the same claim three times, once for each door of action: as long as there is a body, the intention giving rise to bodily action produces pleasure and pain in oneself; the same for voice and for mind.
Each of the first two statements is left unqualified. The third, about mental action, carries a clause the other two do not state explicitly but which the closing section makes clear applies to all three: avijjāpaccayāva, only when dependent on ignorance.
That qualifier is the discourse’s entire argument compressed into one word. Intention does not produce pleasure and pain on its own; it does so only under a specific condition, and the condition is removable.
Four ways a choice gets instigated
The choice behind bodily, verbal, and mental action can be instigated by oneself, by others, after deliberation, or without deliberation. The discourse gives all four and moves on without dwelling on any of them individually.
What matters for the argument is not which of the four applies in a given case, but that ignorance is included in all these things — whichever way the choice arose, ignorance was present in it. The four-way breakdown is exhaustive precisely so that this claim can be made without exception.
What ends when ignorance ends
The discourse then removes the condition and states the consequence with unusual precision: when ignorance fades away and ceases with no residue left, that body, that voice, and that mind no longer exist dependent on which pleasure and pain arise in oneself.
It does not say a person stops having a body, a voice, or a mind. It says that body, that voice, that mind — the ones functioning as a basis for pleasure and pain to arise from — no longer exist in that capacity. The four terms that follow — field, ground, basis, foundation — pile up to make the same point four times: not that experience ends, but that a particular dependency relationship ends.
This is careful language and it should be read as such. The discourse is describing the removal of a condition, not the annihilation of a person, and the four synonyms for ‘basis’ are there to close off exactly the misreading that would collapse the two.
Four kinds of incarnation
The Buddha then introduces a new classification: incarnation — attabhāvapaṭilābha, the acquisition of a state of existence — where one’s own intention is effective and not another’s; where another’s is effective and not one’s own; where both are effective; and where neither is.
Sāriputta immediately restates the first three in terms of departure: beings pass away from those realms due to their own intention, or another’s, or both. Then he asks the question the discourse has been building toward: what gods does the fourth case refer to, the one where neither one’s own nor another’s intention is effective? The Buddha answers precisely: the gods reborn in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, the highest of the formless attainments.
The question that follows, and its answer
Sāriputta asks a second question, and it is the discourse’s real payload: what causes some beings who pass away from that realm to come back to this world as returners, while others do not come back at all?
The Buddha’s answer turns on a single variable, stated twice in parallel. Someone who hasn’t given up the lower fetters enters that same dimension, enjoys it, likes it, finds it rewarding, and is reborn there — and when they pass away, they are a returner. Someone who has given up the lower fetters does the identical thing — enters the same dimension, enjoys it the same way, is reborn there — and passes away a non-returner.
The attainment is described in exactly the same words both times. Nothing about the meditation differs. The Pāli for ‘the lower fetters’ is orambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni, the identical phrase AN 4.131 used to classify noble persons by what they have abandoned. This discourse is running the same mechanism AN 4.123 ran with the four absorptions and the four immeasurables — a genuine attainment, identically reached and identically enjoyed, produces a different outcome depending on a condition that has nothing to do with the meditation itself.
Key terms
The text
Intention and the arising of pleasure and pain
§1“Mendicants, as long as there’s a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. As long as there’s a voice, the intention that gives rise to verbal action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. As long as there’s a mind, the intention that gives rise to mental action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. But this is only when dependent on ignorance.
Four ways a choice is instigated
§2By oneself one instigates the choice that gives rise to bodily, verbal, and mental action, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. Or else others instigate the choice … One instigates the choice after deliberation … Or else one instigates the choice without deliberation …
What ends when ignorance ends
§3Ignorance is included in all these things. But when ignorance fades away and ceases with no residue left behind, that body, that voice, and that mind no longer exist dependent on which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. That field does not exist, that ground does not exist, that basis does not exist, that foundation does not exist, dependent on which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself.”
Four kinds of incarnation
§4“Mendicants, there are four kinds of incarnation. What four? There is incarnation where one’s own intention is effective, not that of others. There is incarnation where the intention of others is effective, not one’s own. There is incarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective. There is incarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective. These are the four kinds of incarnation.”
Sāriputta’s question
§5When he said this, Venerable Sāriputta said to the Buddha: “Sir, this is how I understand the detailed meaning of the Buddha’s brief statement. Take the case of the incarnation where one’s own intention is effective, not that of others. Those sentient beings pass away from that realm due to their own intention. Take the case of the incarnation where the intention of others is effective, not one’s own. Those sentient beings pass away from that realm due to the intention of others. Take the case of the incarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective. Those sentient beings pass away from that realm due to both their own and others’ intentions. But sir, in the case of the incarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective, what kind of gods does this refer to?” “Sāriputta, it refers to the gods reborn in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”
A returner
§6“What is the cause, sir, what is the reason why some sentient beings pass away from that realm as returners who come back to this place, while others are non-returners who don’t come back?” “Sāriputta, take an individual who hasn’t given up the lower fetters. In this very life they enter and abide in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They enjoy it and like it and find it rewarding. If they abide in that, are committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. When they pass away from there, they’re a returner, who comes back to this place.
A non-returner
§7Sāriputta, take an individual who has given up the lower fetters. In this very life they enter and abide in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They enjoy it and like it and find it rewarding. If they abide in that, are committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. When they pass away from there, they’re a non-returner, not coming back to this place.
§8This is the cause, this is the reason why some sentient beings pass away from that realm as returners who come back to this place, while others are non-returners who don’t come back.”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.