Near Sāvatthī, in Jeta’s Grove — the same recurring circumstances as the discourses before it
Speakers
An unnamed deity and the Buddha, in a single exchange of verses
Form
A four-line verse naming conceit as an obstacle, answered by a four-line verse describing its opposite
Length
~1 minute to read
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — direct in form, introducing the wilderness-dwelling theme this vagga's closing discourse will take up next
Looking ahead
The image of practicing ‘alone in the wilderness’ recurs, expanded, in this vagga's final discourse, SN 1.10
Why this discourse
The deity's verse names a specific obstacle: one fond of conceit (mānakāma) cannot be tamed, and no sage lacks immersion — meaning conceit and the absence of immersion are treated as of a piece. Living negligently alone in the wilderness, such a person cannot cross beyond Death's dominion — solitude by itself accomplishes nothing without the right inner condition. The Buddha's reply describes the reverse: one who has given up conceit, is well immersed, good-hearted, and everywhere free, living diligently — not merely alone — in the wilderness does cross beyond Death's dominion.
Reading guide
Conceit as an obstacle to taming
Mānakāma, ‘fond of conceit,’ opens the verse as a description of someone who cannot be tamed or trained. The verse pairs this directly with a lack of immersion (asamāhitassa): a mind occupied with conceit and a mind lacking immersion are treated as two names for one and the same untrained condition.
Solitude is not sufficient by itself
The deity's verse makes a point easy to miss: living alone in the wilderness does not, by itself, get anyone beyond Death's dominion, if that solitude is negligent (pamatto). The setting of wilderness practice is named in both halves of this verse, but only diligence (appamatto) in the Buddha's reply, not the wilderness itself, is what makes the difference.
A precise inversion
As in several other discourses in this vagga, the Buddha's answer inverts the deity's terms one by one: conceit given up rather than indulged, well immersed rather than lacking immersion, diligent rather than negligent. The wilderness setting itself does not change between the two verses — only the inner condition of the one dwelling there does.
Setting up the vagga's closing discourse
This is the second discourse in a row, after SN 1.6 through SN 1.8's shared sleep-imagery, to dwell on solitary wilderness practice. The very next discourse, SN 1.10 — and this vagga's last — takes up the same wilderness setting directly, in the well-known verse that gives the whole vagga its name.
Key terms
mānakāma — “fond of conceit” — this discourse's title, describing the obstacle its opening verse names.
asamāhitassa — “for one lacking immersion” — paired with conceit in the deity's verse as two names for the same untrained condition.
pamatto — “negligent” — the quality that, in the deity's verse, makes solitary wilderness dwelling insufficient by itself.
appamatto — “diligent” — its opposite, in the Buddha's reply, describing the wilderness-dweller who does cross beyond Death's dominion.
maccudheyya — “Death's dominion” — what remains uncrossed by conceit and negligence, and crossed by their absence.
The text
The discourse in full: conceit and negligence as obstacles, given up and reversed in the Buddha's answer. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
§1At Sāvatthī. Standing to one side, that deity spoke this verse in the Buddha’s presence:
§2“One fond of conceit can’t be tamed, no sage is lacking immersion. Living negligent alone in the wilderness, they can’t cross beyond Death’s dominion.”
§3“Having given up conceit, serene within oneself, with a good heart, everywhere free; living diligent alone in the wilderness, they cross beyond Death’s dominion.”
· · ·
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.
Question 1 of 10
What obstacle does the deity's verse open by naming?
Correct: A. Māna, 'conceit,' + kāma, 'fond of' — the discourse's title.
Question 2 of 10
What does the deity's verse pair conceit with?
Correct: A. Both treated as two names for the same untrained condition.
Question 3 of 10
According to the deity's verse, is living alone in the wilderness sufficient by itself?
Correct: A. Negligent solitude does not cross beyond Death's dominion.
Question 4 of 10
What quality does the Buddha's reply substitute for negligence?
Correct: A. The precise inversion of pamatto in the deity's verse.
Question 5 of 10
What does 'maccudheyya' mean?
Correct: A. The goal named in both the deity's verse and the Buddha's reply.
Question 6 of 10
How does the Buddha's answering verse relate structurally to the deity's question?
Correct: A. A precise, term-by-term inversion, as seen elsewhere in this vagga.
Question 7 of 10
What discourse immediately follows this one, continuing the wilderness theme?
Correct: A. SN 1.10 takes up the wilderness setting directly, in this vagga's namesake verse.
Question 8 of 10
What is the setting of this discourse?
Correct: A. The Devatāsaṃyutta's recurring frame continues, even while its content describes wilderness practice.
Question 9 of 10
What does 'appamatto' mean?
Correct: A. The Buddha's substituted quality, opposite to pamatto.
Question 10 of 10
According to this discourse, does the wilderness setting itself change between the two verses?
Correct: A. Both verses describe wilderness dwelling; only diligence versus negligence differs.
